THE      HANDBOOK      SERIES 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS 


THE  HANDBOOK 


AGRICULTURAL  CREDIT 
AMERICANIZATION,  $1.50 
EUROPEAN  WAR.    VOL.  I 
EUROPEAN  WAR.    VOL.  II 
LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS,  $1.50 
PRISON  REFORM 
RUSSIA,  $1.50 
SHORT  BALLOT 
SOCIALISM 
VOCATIONAL  EDUCATION 


Each  volume,  except  as  otherwise  noted, 
$1.25  net 


THE     HANDBOOK     SERIES 


SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS 


Compiled  by 

EDITH  M.  PHELPS 


THE  H.  W.  WILSON  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK 

1918 


Published  December,  1918 


EXPLANATORY  NOTE 

/ 

This  volume,  true  to  the  purpose  of  the  Series,  is  not  in- 
tended as  propaganda  in  favor  of  a  league  of  nations,  nor  to 
oppose  it;  but  to  reflect  as  impartially  as  may  be,  the  develop- 
ment and  present  status  of  the  idea,  and  the  arguments  against 
it  as  well  as  those  in  favor.  The  articles  reprinted  are  ar- 
ranged to  set  forth  first  of  all,  President  Wilson's  conception  of 
a  league  of  nations  as  outlined  in  his  recent  papers  and  ad- 
dresses, the  historical  background,  the  development  of  the  idea 
to  date  and  the  movements  to  advance  it,  with  endorsements  of 
the  idea  from  leading  men  and  organizations.  This  is  followed 
by  a  general  discussion  where  appear  the  arguments  in  favor  of 
a  league  of  nations,  the  objections  to  it  and  the  difficulties  that 
He  in  the  way  of  its  realization.  A  selected  bibliography  is  in- 
cluded for  the  convenience  of  any  who  may  wish  to  pursue  the 
subject  beyond  the  limits  of  this  volume. 

December  6,  1918.  E.  M.  PHELPS. 

NOTE — After  the  main  part  of  this  volume  was  printed,  infor- 
mation was  received  of  the  union  of  the  two  English  societies 
for  a  league  of  nations  described  on  pages  50-52  of  this  Hand- 
book. The  new  union  is  included  in  the  list  of  organizations  on 
page  xxix. 

The  French  plan  for  bringing  about  a  society  of  nations  was 
reported  to  Premier  Clemenceau  a  few  days  ago  by  Baron 
d'Estournelles  de  Constant  and  Senator  Leon  Bourgeois.  A  re- 
port of  this  plan  will  be  found  on  the  front  page  of  the  New 
York  Times  for  December  20,  and  doubtless  will  also  be  found 
in  other  daily  papers  of  the  same  date.  E  M  P 

December  21,  1918. 


385275 


CONTENTS 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Bibliographies   xi 

Books,  Pamphlets  and  Documents xii 

Periodical  References    xvi 

ORGANIZATIONS xxix 

INTRODUCTION   i 

A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  AS  ADVOCATED  BY  WOODROW  WILSON  5 

THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND 

Phillips,  Walter  Alison.    Historical  Survey  of  Projects  of 

Universal  Peace 15 

Snead-Cox,  J.  G.    The  Holy  Alliance  Living  Age  23 

Dennis,   William   C.      William     Penn's    Plan    for  World 

Peace  

..Proceedings,  American  Society  of  International  Law  25 

Stowell,  Ellery  C.    A  League  of  Nations  Nation  27 

Mead,  Lucia  Ames.    The  Hague  and  Peace  Conferences..  29 

Our  Arbitration  Treaties A  League  of  Nations  32 

ORGANIZED  EFFORT  TO  PROMOTE  A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS 
Levermore,  Charles  H.     American  Constructive  Proposals 

for  International  Justice   World  Court      41 

Keeping  the  World  Safe:  The  Preamble  and  Proposals  of 

the  League  to  Enforce  Peace   43 

Victory  Program  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace 45 

League     of     Free     Nations     Association:     Statement     of 

Principles  Survey      47 

The  League  of  Nations  Society 50 

British  League  of  Free  Nations  Association 

World  Court      51 

French  League  of  Nations  Society League  Bulletin      53 


viii  CONTENTS 

Buisson,  Ferdinand.    Appeal  to  Form  a  French  Society  of 

Nations   World  Court      53 

1 1       A  League  of  Nations   New  Statesman      56 

j"   A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  ENDORSED 

Governments  Pledge  Support  to  a  League  of  Nations  61 

Men  and  Organizations  Endorse  a  League  of  Nations  65 

DISCUSSION 

Goldsmith,  Robert.     The  Foundations  of  a  Lasting  Peace 

Bookman      79 

Grey,  Viscount,  of  Falloden.    The  League  of  Nations 86 

Brailsford,  H.  N.     The  League  of  Nations  

English  Review      93 

Wells,  H.  G.    The  League  of  Free  Nations  

Saturday  Evening  Post     101 

A  League  of  Nations  New  Statesman    109 

Overstreet,   Harry    Allen.      What    a  League    of    Nations 

Shall   Be 124 

Van  Hise,  Charles  R.    A  League  of  Nations 134 

Inter-Allied  Labour  and  Socialist  Conference.     Memoran- 
dum on  War  Aims   London  Times    140 

Tead,  Ordway.    Labor  and  the  League  of  Nations 

International   Conciliation     149 

Kallen,   Horace  Meyer.     The   Structure  of  Lasting  Peace 

Dial     155 

Thomas,  Albert.    The  League  of  Nations  

Atlantic   Monthly    162 

The  Defeatists New  Republic    169 

Firth,  J.  B.     The  Government  and  the  League  of  Nations 

Fortnightly  Review     173 

A  League  of  Nations  Living  Age    181 

The  League  to  Enforce  Peace  Spectator    185 

Poindexter,  Miles,  Senator.     A  League  of  Nations   

Congressional  Record    188 

Reed,  James  A.,  Senator.    A  League  of  Nations  

Congressional  Record    191 


CONTENTS  ix 

The  Cornerstone  of  Peace  American  Economist  198 

Macdonell,  John.  The  League  of  Nations  in  Jeopardy 

Contemporary  Review  201 

Lord  Cecil  in  Favor  of  a  World  League . .  New  York  Times  204 

Angell,  Norman.  The  Background  of  Aggression 

New  Republic  207 

Butler,  Nicholas  Murray.     A  League  of  Nations   212 

Holt,  Hamilton.    Why  Peace  Must  Be  Enforced  

Independent    213 

Taft,   William  Howard.     International   Police  to   Enforce 

World  Peace  Nation's  Business    217 

Lodge,  Henry  Cabot.     Opposition  to  Force  for  an  Interna- 
tional Peace  League  221 

Marburg,  Theodore.     Germany  and  a  League  of  Nations 

New  York  Times    224 

Freedom  of  the  Seas New  York  Times    227 

Freedom  of  the  Seas  Independent    229 

Wilson,  George  -Grafton.     The  Monroe  Doctrine  and  the 

Program  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  

World  Peace  Foundation    230 

Bryce,  Viscount.     The  Monroe  Doctrine  and  a  League  of 

Nations  Nation  235 

Parmoor,  Lord.  Lord  Lansdowne  and  the  League,  of 

Nations Contemporary  Review  237 

Bennett,  Arnold.  A  Peace  League  Based  on  Population 

New  York  Times  Current  History  241 

Blakeslee,  George  H.  Will  Democracy  Make  the  World 

Safe Proceedings.  American  Antiquarian  Society  245 

Pinkham,  Henry  W.  A  League  of  Nations  Public  251 

Begbie,  Harold.  Can  Man  Abolish  War  ? '. . 

North  American  Review  252 

Rockefeller,  John  D.,  Jr.  Man  Cannot  Live  to  Himself 

Alone  nor  Can  a  Nation 255 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Many  of  these  articles,  as  well  as  similar  material  which  may  be  pub- 
lished after  this  volume  has  been  issued,  may  be  secured  at  reasonable 
rates  from  the  Wilson  Package  Library,  operated  by  The  H.  W.  Wilson 
Company. 

BIBLIOGRAPHIES 

Balch,  Emily  Greene.  Approaches  to  the  great  settlement, 
p.  346-51.  *$i.5Q.  Huebsch.  1918. 

Bigelow,  John.    World  peace,  p.  266-74.  *$i-5o.  Kennerley.    1916. 

Goldsmith,  Robert.  League  to  enforce  peace,  p.  307-18.  *$i.5o. 
Macmillan.  1917. 

Hicks,  Frederick  C.  Internationalism:  a  selected  list  of  books, 
pamphlets  and  periodicals,  pa  gratis.  American  Association 
for  International  Conciliation.  1913. 

League  of  Nations.  1 :5i-3-  O.  '17.  Books  on  a  league  of  na- 
tions. 

National  Security  League.  America  at  war.  p.  339-87.  Ques- 
tions of  peace.  1918. 

Oregon.  University.  Bulletin,  n.  s.  14:21-6.  N.  15,  '17.  Interna- 
tional peace  league :  reading  list  and  suggestions  by  the 
Oregon  state  library. 

Reely,  Mary  Katharine.  World  peace,  including  international 
arbitration  and  disarmament.  2d  ed.  (Debaters'  Handbook 
Series),  p.  xv-xxxiv.  Bibliography  to  July,  1914.  *$i.25. 
H.  W.  Wilson  Company.  1916. 

Reference  book  for  speakers;  Win  the  war;  Make  the  world 
safe  by  the  defeat  of  German  militarism;  Keep  the  world 
safe  by  a  league  of  nations,  p.  63-4.  League  to  Enforce 
Peace.  130  W.  42d  St.,  New  York. 

United  States.  Library  of  Congress — Division  of  Bibliography. 
List  of  references  on  a  league  of  nations.  October  7,  1918. 
18  p.  Mimeographed,  gratis. 

World  Peace  Foundation.  League  of  nations  publications.  6p. 
Free  on  request.  40  Mt.  Vernon  St.,  Boston. 

A  list  of  the  publications  published  by  and  sold  or  otherwise  dis- 
tributed by  the  World  Peace  Foundation. 


xii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

BOOKS,  PAMPHLETS  AND  DOCUMENTS 

Adler,  Felix.  World  crisis  and  its  meaning.  Ch.  IV.  *$i.5o. 
Appleton.  1915. 

Angell,  Norman.  Political  conditions  of  allied  success.  *$i-5O. 
Putnam.  1918. 

Baker,  James  H.  After  the  war — what?  p.  89-112.  $i.  Strat- 
ford Co.,  Boston.  1918. 

Balch,  Emily  Greene.  Approaches  to  the  great  settlement. 
*$i.5o.  Huebsch.  1918. 

An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page  50. 
Bassett,  John  Spencer.     Lost  fruits  of  Waterloo.    *$i.5o.    Mac- 

millan.    1918. 

An  examination  of  the  idea  of  the  "leegue  of  nations"  in  the  light  of 
history. 

Beck,  James  M.     The  reckoning,  p.  213-21.     *$i.5o.     Putnam's. 

New  York.     1918. 
Beer,    George    Louis.      English-speaking    peoples.      p.     138-60. 

League  to  enforce  peace.   $1.50.    Macmillan.    1917. 
Bigelow,  John.     World  peace.    *$i-5O.    Kennerley.    1916. 
Blakeslee,   George   H.,   ed.     Problems    and    lessons   of    peace. 

[Clark  University  addresses]    p.  214-22.     League  to  enforce 

peace.    Putnam.    1916. 

Brailsford,  Henry  N.  League  of  nations,  new  ed.  *$2.  Mac- 
millan. 1918. 

Bridgman,  R.  L.     World  organization.    *6oc.    Ginn.    1905. 
Brinkerhoff,  E.  D.     Constitution  for  the  united  nations  of  the 

earth.    3d  ed.  pa.  Pamphlet  pub.  co.,  Fall  River,  Mass. 
Brown,  Hugh  H.     League  to  enforce  peace:    address  before  a 

joint  session  of  the  Nevada  legislature.     February  13,  1917. 

I2p.    Carson  City.    1917. 
Burnes,  Leon.     Nation  of  the  sea,  or  the  United  nations  of  the 

world.    $1.15.     Hirch.     1917. 

This  book  attempts  to   offer   a  solution   of  the  problem   of  world  gov- 
ernment, in  the  form  of  a  constitution  ready  for  immediate  use. 

Butler,  Nicholas  Murray.    World  in  ferment;  interpretations  of 

the  war  for  a  new  world.    Chap.  Ill,  IV,  IX,  XVI.    *$i.2S. 

Scribner.    1917. 
Clark,  J.  M.,  and  others,  eds.   Readings  in  the  economics  of  war. 

p.  588-616.    Economic  factors  in  an  enduring  peace.  *$3.  Univ. 

of  Chicago  Press.    1918. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xiii 

Cosmos.  Basis  of  durable  peace:  written  at  the  invitation  of 
the  New  York  Times,  pa.  300.  Scribner's.  1917. 

Crozier,  Alfred  Owen.  Nation  of  nations.  *5oc.  Stewart  & 
Kidd.  1915. 

Dickinson,  G.  Lowes.  Choice  before  us.  Ch.  X,  XIV.  *$2. 
Dodd  Mead.  1917. 

Dickinson,  G.  Lowes.  Foundations  of  a  league  of  peace.  World 
Peace  Foundation.  V;  no.  2.  April,  1915. 

Enforced  peace :  proceedings  of  the  first  annual  national  as- 
semblage of  the  League  to  enforce  peace.  Washington. 
May  26-27,  1916.  5oc.  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  130  W.  42d 
St.,  New  York. 

Fayle,  C.  Ernest.     Great  settlement.     Murray.     1915. 

Frankly  sceptical. 

Filene,     Edward    A.      International    vigilance    committee,    pa. 

League  to  enforce  peace.    1917. 
Foote,  A.  R.    United  democratic  nations  of  the  world,   pa.   25c. 

American  Progress,  322  C  St.  N.  W.,  Washington,  D.C.   1917. 
Goldsmith,  Robert.     League  to  enforce  peace.    *$i.5o.    Macmil- 

lan.    1917. 
Gompers,   Samuel.     Labor's  interest  in  the  League  to  enforce 

peace,    pa.    League  to  enforce  peace.    1916. 
Gore,  Charles  (Bishop  of  Oxford).    League  of  nations:  oppor- 
tunity of  the  church.    28p.  pa.  loc.     Doran.     1918. 
Grabo,  C.  Henry.     World  peace  and  after.    *$i  Knopf.    1918. 
Grey,  Edward,  Viscount  of  Falloden.     The  league  of  nations: 

pamphlet.    University  Press.    Oxford. 

This  address  has  been  reprinted  in  the  New  York  Times,  June  30, 
1918;  New  York  Times  Current  History.  8:345-9.  August,  1918;  Survey. 
40:400-1,  408,  July  6,  1918;  International  Conciliation,  no.  131:515-25. 
October,  1918;  Advocate  of  Peace,  80:209-12.  July,  1918;  World  Court. 
4:398-404.  July,  1918.  A  part  of  the  address  has  been  reprinted  in  this 
Handbook.  See  page  86. 
Hobson,  John  A.  Towards  international  government.  *$i. 

Macmillan.   1915. 
Houston,    Herbert    S.      Blocking   new    wars.     *$i.     Doubleday. 

1918. 
Jastrow,  Morris,  Jr.     War  and  the  coming  peace:    The  moral 

issue.   *$i.  Lippincott.    1918. 
Jefferson,    Charles    E.      Christianity    and    international    peace. 

*$i.25.     Crowell.    1915. 


xiv  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Jordan,  David  Starr.     Ways  to  lasting  peace.     Ch.  VIII.     *$i. 

Bobbs-Merrill.    1916. 

Kallen,  Horace  Meyer.  Structure  of  lasting  peace;  an  inquiry 
into  the  motives  of  war  and  peace.  *$i.25.  Marshall  Jones 
Co.,  Boston.  1918. 

Kant,  Immanuel.  Perpetual  peace;  tr.  by  Benjamin  F.  True- 
blood.  54p.  25c.  American  Peace  Society,  Colorado  Build- 
ing, Washington,  D.C. 

Labor's  war  aims:  adopted  by  the  Inter- Allied  Labour  and  So- 
cialist Conference,  February  22,  1918.  (In  International  Con- 
ciliation: Special  Bulletin,  June,  1918.) 

An  excerpt  is  printed  in  this  Handbook.  See  page  140.  The  entire 
article  is  printed  also  in  McCurdy,  Charles  A.  Clean  Peace,  pa.  loc. 
Doran.  1918;  New  Republic.  i4:sup.  1-5.  March  23,  1918;  and  a  sum- 
mary will  be  found  in  the  Survey.  40:6.  April  6,  1918. 
League  of  nations.  International  conciliation.  No.  131.  Octo- 
ber, 1918. 

Contents:  League  of  nations,  Viscount  Grey;  League  of  nations, 
Nicholas  Murray  Butler;  Labor  and  the  league  of  nations,  Ordway  Tead; 
European  commission  of  the  Danube:  an  experiment  in  international  ad- 
ministration, Edward  Krehbiel;  Address  by  President  Wilson  at  the  Metro- 
politan Opera  House,  New  York,  September  27,  1918. 

An  excerpt  from  Ordway  Tead's  article  is  reprinted  in  this  Hand- 
book. See  page  149. 

Liberty,  peace  and  justice,   p.  17-43.    *32c.    Houghton.    1918. 

Lodge,  Henry  Cabot.  War  addresses:  1915-1917.  p.  245-80. 
President's  plan  for  a  world  peace.  *$2.5o.  Houghton-Mif- 
flin.  1917. 

Lowell,  A.  Lawrence.  League  to  enforce  peace,  pa.  World 
Peace  Foundation.  1915. 

Mabie,  Edward  C,  ed.  International  police  to  enforce  treaties 
and  preserve  peace.  (In  University  debaters'  annual,  p.  1-42.) 
*$i.8o.  H.  W.  Wilson  Company.  1916. 

Marburg,  Theodore,  ed.  Draft  convention-  for  league  of  na- 
tions. *25c.  Macmillan.  1918. 

Marburg,  Theodore.  League  of  nations:  a  chapter  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  movement,  soc.  Macmillan.  1917. 

Marburg,  Theodore.  League  of  nations.  Vol.  II.  6oc.  Mac- 
millan. 1918. 

Mead,  Lucia  Ames.    Primer  of  the  peace  movement.    8th  ed. 
rev.  23p.  pa.     American  Peace   Society,    Colorado   Building, 
Washington,  D.C. 
Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.  See  page  29. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xv 

Mercer,  Samuel  A.  B.  Allied  and  American  peace  terms.  6oc. 
Young  Churchman  Co.  1918. 

Minor,  Raleigh  C.  A  republic  of  nations.  *$2.5o.  Oxford  Uni- 
versity Press.,  Amer.  Branch,  35  W.  32d  St.,  New  York.  1918. 

Miigge,  Maximilian  A.     Parliament  of  man.     Daniel.    1916. 

Overstreet,  Harry  A.  World  organization.  i6p.  ;c.  Woman's 
Peace  Party.  70  5th  Av.,  New  York.  1918. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.,    See  page   124. 

Penn,  William.  Essay  towards  the  present  and  future  peace  of 
Europe.  2ip.  [Advocate  reprints].  loc.  American  Peace 
Society,  Colorado  Building,  Washington,  D.C. 

Phelps,  Edith  M.,  ed.  League  of  nations  to  enforce  peace.  (In 
University  debaters'  annual.  Vol.  IV.  p.  107-43).  *$i.8o. 
H.  W.  Wilson  Company.  1918. 

Phillips,  Walter  Alison.  The  confederation  of  Europe.  Long- 
mans. 1914. 

Reely,  Mary  Katharine.  World  peace  including  international 
arbitration  and  disarmament.  2d  ed.  (Debaters'  Handbook 
Series).  $1.25.  H.  W.  Wilson  Co.  1916. 

Reference  book  for  speakers:  Win  the  war;  Make  the  world 
safe  by  the  defeat  of  German  militarism;  Keep  the  world 
safe  by  a  league  of  nations.  64p.  pa.  League  to  Enforce 
Peace.  130  W.  42d  St.,  New  York. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  pages  43  and  61. 
Reinsch,  Paul  S.     Public  international  unions.     2d  ed.     World 

Peace  Foundation.     1916. 
Robinson,   Edgar   E.   and  West,   Victor  J.      Foreign  policy  of 

Woodrow  Wilson,  1913-1917.     Macmillan.    1917. 

The   body   of   the   work   is   given   over   to   the   important   utterances   of 
the  Administration. 

Shaw,  Albert.  President  Wilson's  state  papers  and  addresses: 
with  editorial  notes,  a  biographical  sketch  and  an  analytical 
index,  p.  271,  274,  315,  350,  355,  470.  *$2.  Doran.  1918. 

Taft,  William  Howard.     League  to  enforce  peace.    (In  Fulton, 
Maurice  Garland.    National  ideals  and  problems,    p.  376-87. 
Macmillan.    New  York.    1918.) 
Reprinted  from  the  proceedings  of  the  National  Education  Association, 

1916,  p.   41-9.    See  also  National  Conference  of  Social  Work.     1917:33-43. 

Taft,  William  Howard,  and  Bryan,  William  Jennings.  World 
peace :  a  written  debate.  *$i.25.  Doran.  1917. 

See  also  International  Conciliation.    No.  106.    September,   1916. 


xvi  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Trueblood,  Benjamin  F.-    Federation  of  the  world.    3d  ed.     $i 

Houghton.    1908. 
United  States.    President.    League  for  peace;  address.  50.  Supt. 

of  doc.    1917. 

Walsh,  Walter.    World  rebuilt.  Allen  &  Unwin.    1917. 
Wells,  H.  G.     In  the  fourth  year.    $1.25.    Macmillan.    1918. 
Wells,  H.~G.    League  of  free  nations.    *$i.25.    Macmillan.    1918. 
Wilson,  George  Grafton.     Monroe  doctrine  and  the  program  of 

the  League    to    enforce    peace.     World    Peace    Foundation. 

Vol.  VI:  no.  4.     August,   1916. 

An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See    page  230. 

Wilson,  Woodrow.  Address  at  the  Metropolitan  Opera  House, 
New  York,  September  27,  1918.  (In  International  Concilia- 
tion. No.  131.  October,  1918.) 

For  President  Wilson's  earlier  addresses  see  Robinson  and  West. 
Foreign  policy  of  Woodrow  Wilson,  and  Shaw.  President  Wilson's  state 
papers  and  addresses. 

Win  the  war  for  permanent  peace:  addresses  made  at  the  na- 
tional convention  of  the  League  to  enforce  peace,  in  Philadel- 
phia, May  16-17,  1918.  League  to  Enforce  Peace.  130  W. 
42d  St.,  New  York. 

Pt.  V.      A  league  of  nations — America's  responsibility  and  duty.     Ad- 
dresses by   Talcott    Williams,    Herbert    S.    Houston,    William    English    Wal- 
ling, Rev.  Thomas  J.  Shahan,  John  Sharp  Williams. 
Woman's    Peace    Party.      Congressional   program.     April,    1918. 

5c.    70  5th  Av.,  New  York. 
Woolf,    L.    S.     International   government.      Prepared    for   the 

Fabian  Research  Department.    *$2.  Brentano's.     1916. 
World  Peace  Foundation.    Vol.  VI :  no.  5.    October,  1916.    Con- 
ciliation plan  of  the  League  to  enforce  peace  with  American 
treaties  in  force. 

World  Peace  Foundation.  Vol.  VI.  no.  6.  December,  1916.  His- 
torical light  on  the  League  to  enforce  peace.  40  Mt.  Vernon 
St.,  Boston. 

PERIODICAL  REFERENCES 

Academy  of  Political  Science  (N.Y.).  Proceedings.  7:1-187. 
Jl.  '17.  Foreign  relations  of  the  United  States.  Pt.  i.  Demo- 
cratic ideal  in  world  organization. 

P-  36-53.  Snow,  Alpheus  H.  International  legislation  and  administra- 
tion. 

P.  65-9.    Holt,  Hamilton.    League  to  enforce  peace. 
P.   183-7.    Byrne,  J.    Plans  for  world  organization. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xvii 

Advocate  of  Peace.    78:262-4.   O.  '16.   Price  of  peace.    A.  Law- 
rence Lowell. 
Advocate  of  Peace.    78:303-4.    N.  '16.    League  to  enforce  peace : 

reply.    Alpheus  H.  Snow. 
Advocate  of  Peace.     79:235-7.     Ag.   '17.      Society    of  nations. 

James  Brown  Scott. 
Advocate  of  Peace.    79:298-303.    N.  '17.     Synopsis  of  plans  for 

international  organization.     Charles  H.  Levermore. 

Reprinted  from  World's  Court  Magazine.    July,   1917- 
Advocate  of  Peace.    79:337-9.    D.  '17.    Krause's  proposition  for 

a  European  league  of  states. 

Advocate  of  Peace.    80:19-20.    Ja.  '18.    Woman's  work  for  in- 
ternationalism.    Lucia  Ames  Mead. 
Advocate  of  Peace.     80:21-2.    Ja.  '18.     Current  forerunners  of 

a  league  of  nations:  notes  of  the  English  League  of  nations 

society. 
Advocate  of  Peace.    80:205-9.    Jl.  '18.    Draft  convention  for   a 

league  of  nations. 
Advocate   of   Peace.     80:209-12.     Jl.   '18.     League   of  nations. 

Edward  Grey,  Viscount  of  Falloden. 
Advocate   of   Peace.     80:235-7.     Ag.   '18.     A  governed  world. 

Nicholas  Murray  Butler. 
Advocate  of  Peace.     80:300-1.     N.  '18.      A  fatal    flaw  in  the 

league-of-nations  schemes.    Gustav  Spiller. 
American   Antiquarian    Society.     Proceedings,    n.  s.     27 :  pt.   2 : 

358-74.    O.  '17.    Will  democracy  alone  make  the  world  safe: 

a  study  of  the  history  of  the  foreign  relations  of  democratic 

states.     George  H.  Blakeslee. 

An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page  245. 
American    Economist.      62:222.      O.    18,    '18.      Corner-stone    of 

peace. 
American  Economist     62:241.     O.  25,  '18.     Problems  after  the 

war.    Edward  A.  Filene. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  page   198. 
American  Journal   of   International  Law.     12:498-518.     Jl.   '18. 

Some   reflections   on   the   problem   of   a   society   of   nations. 

Albert  Kocourek. 
American   Law   Review.     52:383-400.     My.   '18.    Avoidance   of 

war.    Graham  Bower. 
American  Political  Science  Review.  12:304-11.    My.  '18.    League 

of  nations  and  international  law.    E.  D.  Dickinson. 


xviii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

American    Society   of    International   Law.     Proceedings,    1917: 
91-100.      International    organization:     executive   and   admin- 
istrative;  some  supposed  objections  to  a  league  for  peace. 
William  C.  Dennis. 
An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  page  25. 

American  Society  of  International  Law.  Proceedings,  1917: 
101-7.  International  organization:  executive  and  administra- 
tive. James  Brown  Scott. 

American  Society  of  International  Law.  Proceedings,  1917: 
107-24.  America  and  the  future  society  of  nations.  Alejan- 
dro Alvarez. 

American  Society  of  International  Law.  Proceedings,  1917: 
125-31.  Neutralization  of  states  in  the  scheme  of  interna- 
tional organization.  Henri  La  Fontaine. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  61 :276-83.  S.  '15.  World 
court  and  league  of  peace.  Theodore  Marburg. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  66:12-15.  Jl.  '16.  Three 
plans  for  a  durable  peace.  William  I.  Hull. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  66:26-31.  Jl.  '16.  Economic 
pressure  as  a  means  of  preserving  peace.  Herbert  S.  Hous- 
ton. 

Discusses  the  value  of  economic  pressure  as  a  deterrent  force. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  66:44-9.  Jl.  '16.  Road  to  a 
durable  peace.  Edward  A.  Filene. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  66:50-9.  Jl.  '16.  League  to 
enforce  peace — a  reply  to  critics.  Theodore  Marburg. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  66:92-4.  Jl.  '16.  America's 
need  for  an  enforced  peace.  Talcott  Williams. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  72  :40-8.  Jl.  '17.  Pax  Amer- 
icana. George  W.  Kirchwey. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  72:142-6.  Jl.  '17.  Sover- 
eignty and  race  as  affected  by  a  league  of  nations.  Theodore 
Marburg. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  72:185-99.  Jl. '17.  A  league 
to  enforce  peace.  Walter  L.  Fisher. 

Atlantic  Monthly.  119:433-42.  Ap.  '17.  United  States  and  the 
league  of  peace.  H.  N.  Brailsford. 

Atlantic  Monthly.  119:650-5.  My.  '17.  American  plan  for  en- 
forcing peace.  Sir  Frederick  Pollock. 

A  sympathetic  discussion  of  the  League  to  enforce  peace  with  observa- 
tions as  to  some  of  its  proposals. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xix 

Atlantic   Monthly.     122:677-87.     N.   '18.     League    of    nations. 

Albert  Thomas. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this   Handbook.      See  page   162. 
Bellman.    25  :538-9.    N.  '16,  '18.    A  president  of  the  world. 
Bellman.    25:539-40.     N.  16,  '18.    An  international  democracy. 
Bibliotheca  Sacra.     75 :598-6oo.     O.  '18.     Bishop  Gore's  mission 

to  the  United  States. 
Bookman.    47:227-34.    My.  '18.    Foundations  of  a  lasting  peace. 

Robert  Goldsmith. 

An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  page  79. 
Books  and   Reading.      i  :88-95,      O   '18.     Historical   Survey  of 

Projects  of  Universal  Peace.     W.  Alison  Phillips. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page   15. 
Candid  Quarterly  Review.     No.  12:689-99.     N.  '16.    Arbitration 

dreams. 
Christian  Science  Monitor.     My.  8,  '18.     Gilbert  Murray  on    a 

league  of  nations. 
Christian  Science  Monitor.     My.  13,  '18.     Sir  W.  Dickinson   on 

league  of  nations. 
Commonwealth  Review.    2:642-61.     Jl.  '17.    Proposed  plans  for 

international  organization.     F.  A.  Magruder. 
Congressional  Record.     56:4046-7.     Mr.  20,  '18.     League  of  na- 
tions.    R.  L.  Owen. 
Congressional  Record.     56:12652-3,  12658-69.    [unbound]    N.  15, 

'18.    League  of  nations :  discussed  by  the  Senate. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  page   188. 

Congressional     Record.     56:12720-5.     [unbound]      N.    21,    '18. 

League  of  nations :  speech  by  Senator  Reed  of  Missouri. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  page   191. 
Contemporary  Review,     in  :29O~3OO.     Mr.  '17.     Armed  pacifism. 

John   Macdonell. 

Same.      Living   Age.      293:259-67.      May    5,    1917. 
Contemporary  Review.     111:665-73.    Je.  '17.    League  of  nations 

and  its  critics.    W.  H.  Dickinson. 

Author  is  chairman  of  the  League  of  Nations  Society.     Same  article  is 
in   Living  Age.      294:259-66.     August  4,    1917. 
Contemporary    Review.      113:8-13.     Ja.    '18.      Lord   Lansdowne 

and  the  league  of  nations.     Lord  Parmoor. 

An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page  237. 
Contemporary  Review.     114:126-33.    Ag.  '18.    League  of  nations 

in  jeopardy.     John  Macdonell. 

See  also  Living  Age.    299:65-71.    October  12,  1918. 

Excerpts   are   reprinted  in  this   Handbook.      See   page   201. 


xx  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Contemporary  Review.     114:254-61.     S.  '18.     Failure  of  Water- 
loo.    Shaw  of  Dunfermline. 
Compares  the  conditions  surrounding  the  Holy  Alliance   with  those  at 

the  present  time. 

Current  Opinion.    62:82-5.    F.  '17.    Will  the  United  States  fight 

to  preserve  the  peace  of  the  world? 
Dial.    64:180-6.     F.  28,  '18.     Structure  of  lasting  peace.    H.  M. 

Kallen. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this   Handbook.      See  page    155. 

Dial.  65:397-9.  N.  16,  '18.  Will  Russia  defeat  us?  Harold 
Stearns. 

Dial.  65:401-3.  N.  16,  '18.  League  of  nations  and  the  new 
diplomacy.  John  Dewey. 

Dublin  Review.  160:1-16.  Ja.  '17.  Future  machinery  of  peace. 
J.  G.  Snead-Cox. 

Economic  Journal.  37:442-4.  S.  '17.  League  to  enforce  peace. 
John  Bates  Clark. 

Economic  World,  n  s.  15 :7-io.  Jl.  6,  '18.  Conditions  essential 
to  a  league  of  nations  after  the  war.  Edward  Grey,  Vis- 
count of  Falloden. 

Economic  World,  n.  s.  16:651-2.  N.  9,  '18.  Finding  a  basis  for 
continuing  mutual  interest  for  the  league  of  nations. 
Arthur  Richmond  Marsh. 

Edinburgh  Review.  225:227-48.  Ap.  '17.  President  Wilson's 
peace  program  and  the  British  empire.  W.  Alison  Phillips. 

English  Review.  26:275-84.  Mr.  '18.  Ides  of  March.  Austin 
Harrison. 

English    Review.      27:87-101.      Ag.    '18.      Foundations    of     im- 
perialism; prize  essay.     H.  N.  Brailsford. 
Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page  93. 

English  Review.  27:167-83.  S.  '18.  League  of  nations.  George 
Aitken. 

English  Review.  27 :297-3o6.  O.  '18.  A  league  of  nations 
again.  Austin  Harrison. 

Fortnightly  Review,   n.  s.   103:116-23.   Ja.  '18.    America's  weapon 
for  peace.    James  D.  Whelpley. 
Same.      Living  Age.  296:579-84.     March  9,    1918. 

Fortnightly  Review,  n.s .  104:39-51.  Jl.  '18.  An  illusory  league 
of  nations.  J.  B.  Firth. 

Fortnightly  Review.  104:294-305.  Ag.  '18.  Is  a  league  of  na- 
tions illusory?  J.  G.  Swift  MacNeill. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxi 

Fortnightly  Review.  104:367-75.  S.  '18.  Government  and  the 
league  of  nations.  J.  B.  Firth. 

An  excerpt  is   reprinted  in  this   Handbook.      See   page    173. 

Fortnightly  Review.    104:489-501.     O.  '18.     The  empire  and  the 

world  league.    E.  J.  Dillon. 

See  also  Living  Age.     299:449-59.     November  23,  1918. 
Fortnightly  Review.     104:567-73.     O.   '18.     The  obstacles  to    a 

league  of  nations.     William  Archer. 

An  answer  to  the  articles  of  J.  B.  Firth. 

Fortnightly  Review.  104 :742-55.  N.  '18.  The  greater  community. 
Mona  Caird. 

Forum.  57:553-66.  My.  '17.  Peace  by  coercion.  H.  M.  Chit- 
tenden. 

Good  Housekeeping.  66:42,  136.  Mr.  '18.  Great  world  movie: 
a  machine  to  guard  machinery.  E.  S.  Martin. 

Hibbert  Journal.  15:189-08.  Ja.  '17.  Enforcing  peace.  Ed- 
ward M.  Chapman. 

Hibbert  Journal.  16:513-26.  Jl.  '18.  League  of  nations  and  the 
commonwealth  of  nations.  Roland  K.  Wilson. 

Hibbert  Journal.  16:527-41.  Jl.  '18.  Nationalism,  international- 
ism and  supernationalism.  J.  A.  R.  Marriott. 

Independent.  82:447-8.  Je.  14,  '15.  A  declaration  of  interde- 
pendence. 

Independent.  82:459-62.  Je.  14,  '15.  League  of  nations.  Wil- 
liam H.  Taft,  A.  Lawrence  Lowell  and  Theodore  Marburg. 

Independent.     86:358.    Je.  5,  '16.    League  to  enforce  peace. 

Independent.     89:202.     F.  5,  '17.     Declaration  of  independence. 

Independent.  89:212-13.  F.  5,  '17.  Why  peace  must  be  en- 
forced. Hamilton  Holt. 

Reprinted  in   this   Handbook.      See  page   213. 

Independent.  89:224-7.  F.  5,  '17.  President  Wilson's  address 
to  the  Senate,  January  22,  1917. 

Independent.    92:497-8.     D.  15,  '17.     For  a  holy  war. 

Independent.    93:141,  152.    Ja.  26,  '18.    United  nations. 

Independent.  95  .-44-5.  Jl.  13,  '18.  Peace  league  now  or  later? 
Hamilton  Holt. 

Independent.  95:354,  363,  367.  S.  14,  '18.  League  of  nations 
now.  Thomas  Raeburn  White. 

International  Journal  of  Ethics.  29:8-25.  O.  '18.  Enthrone- 
ment of  public  right.  E.  Thackray. 


xxii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

International  Journal  of  Ethics.    29:26-8.     O.  '18.    International 
war  chest.    H.  T.  Weeks. 

Journal  of  Accountancy.     19:85-96.     F.  '15.     Plan  for  interna- 
tional  peace.    E.   W.   Sells. 

League  Bulletin.     No.  107.  p.  277-9.     O.  5,  '18.     Wilson  charts 
the  course. 

League  Bulletin.   No.  108.   p.  286-7.    O.  12,  '18.    Preliminary  re- 
port of  Bourgeois   commission:  basis  of  society  of  nations 
plan  now  in  hands  of  allied  governments. 
An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  page  53. 

League  of  Nations,    i  :3O-8.    O  '17.    Our  arbitration  treaties. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page   32. 
Literary  Digest.     50:1405-6.     Je.    12,   '15.     To  infuse   personal 

morality  into  nations. 
Literary  Digest.    51 :594~5.    S.  18,  '15.    Keeping  the  peace  of  the 

future. 
Literary  Digest.     54:324-5.     F.   10,  '17.   Shall  America  join    a 

peace  league? 
Literary  Digest.     56:13.     F.  2,  '18.     How  to  secure  permanent 

peace. 

Literary  Digest.     58:17-18.     Ag.   10,  '18.     Can  a  league  of  na- 
tions work? 
Literary  Digest.     59:11-12.     O.  12,  '18.     Shall  the  peace  league 

•  include  Germany? 
Literary  Digest.     59:18-19.     O.    19,   '18.      German    fitness    for 

peace-league  membership. 

Living  Age.    291 :695-6.    D.  16,  '16.    League  of  nations. 
Living  Age.     292:508-10.     F.  24,  '17.     President  Wilson's  move 

for  peace. 
Living  Age.     292:771-9.     Mr.   31,   '17.     Future    machinery    of 

peace.    J.  G.  Snead-Gox. 

An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  page  23. 

Living  Age.     296:760-2.     Mr.  23,  '18.     Peace  terms  and  catch 

phrases. 
Living  Age.     297:312-15.    My.  4,  '18.     Sanctity  of  international 

contracts. 
Living  Age.    208:113-15.    Jl.  13,  '18.    League  of  nations. 

Reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page   181. 

Living  Age.    208:304-5.    Ag.  3,  '18.    League  of  nations. 
Living  Age.     298:346-7.     Ag.   10,  '18.      Viscount  Grey     and  a 
"good  peace." 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxiii 

Living  Age.    299  '.472-80.    N.  23,  '18.    A  league  of  nations.    Vis- 
count Grey  of  Falloden. 
A  speech  delivered  at  the  Central  Hall,  Westminster,  October  10,  1918. 

Living  Age.     299:480-4.     N.  23,  '18.     International  arbitration: 
an  Austrian  view.     M.  Grafottokar  Czernin. 

Metropolitan  Magazine.     45:27+.     Mr.  '17.     Lesson  taught  by 
Canada.    Theodore  Roosevelt. 

Modern  City.    3:33-6.    Jl.  '18.     League  of  nations  and  interna- 
tional law.    E.  D.  Dickinson. 

Nation.     103:413.    N.  2,  '16.    To  make  the  peace  secure. 

Nation.     103:536-8.     D.  7,  '16.     A  league  of  nations.     Ellery  C. 
Stowell. 

An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  page  27. 

Nation.     104:5-6.     Ja.  4,  '17.     Critics  of  the  league  to  enforce 
peace. 

Nation.    104:400.    Ap.  5,  '17.    Economic  pressure.    Robert  Mat- 
thews. 

Nation.     105:659.    D.  13,  '17.  Monroe  Doctrine  and  a  league  of 
nations.     Viscount  Bryce. 
Reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page  235. 

Nation.     106:392-4.    Ap.  4,  '18.     British  empire  and  a  league  of 
peace.     George  Burton  Adams. 

Nation.    107:5.    Jl.  6,  '18.    Pseudo-league  of  nations. 

Nation.     107:58.     Jl.  20,  '18.     Mr.  Asquith  and  a  league  of  na- 
tions. 

Nation.     107:508-10.     N.   2,  '18.     Napoleon  and  Hollenzollern. 
William  Milligan  Sloane. 

Nation.     107:576.     N.  '16,  '18.     The  peace  and  after.     Charles 
Gore,  Bishop  of  Oxford. 

Nation.     107,  sec.  2:509-601.    N.  16,  '18.     Freedom  of  the  seas. 
Pitman  B.  Potter. 

National  Drug  Clerk.     6:692-3+,  805-6+,  O.-N.,  '18.     Blocking 
new  wars.     Herbert  S.  Houston. 

New  Armenia.     10:161-3.     N.  '18.    Armenia  and  the  league  of 
nations.    Edward  H.  Clement. 

New  Republic.     7:102-4.    Je.  3,  '16.     Mr.  Wilson's  great  utter- 
ance. 

New  Republic.    9:60-2.    N.  18,  '16.    Germany  and  the  league  of 
peace. 

New  Republic.    9:255-7.    Ja.  6,  '17.    Opposition  gathers. 


xxiv  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

New  Republic.     9:281-3.     Ja.  13,  'i7-     Roosevelt  and  righteous- 
ness. 
New    Republic.      9:287-91.     Ja.    13,    '17.     Structure    of    peace. 

Herbert  Croly. 

New  Republic.     10:5-7.     F.  3,  'i7-     Facts  behind  the  phrase. 
New  Republic.     10:187-90.     Mr.  17,  '17.     Peace  by  organization. 

H.  N.  Brailsford. 

New  Republic.  12:150-2.     S.  8,  '17.    The  background  of  aggres- 
sion.   Norman  Angell. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page  207. 
New  Republic.     13:265-6.    Ja.  5,  '18.     France  and  the  league  of 

nations. 
New  Republic.     13:368-72.     Ja.  26,  '18.     To  make  the  league  of 

nations  real. 

New  Republic.     14:41-3.     F.  9,  '18.     Wisdom  of  the  wise. 
New  Republic.     14:286-9.     Ap.  6,  '18.     League  of  free  nations: 

a  plain  necessity.     H.  G.  Wells. 
New  Republic.    14:316-18.    Ap.  13,  '18.    League  of  free  nations: 

what  democracy  means.    H.  G.  Wells. 
New   Republic.      15:113-15.      My.    25,    '18.     League    of   nations. 

H.  N.  Brailsford. 

New  Republic.     15:309-11.    Jl.  13,  '18.    H.  N.  Brailsford. 
New  Republic.     16:152-5.     S.  7,  '18.     In  justice  to  France. 
New  Republic.    16:327-9.    O.  19,  '18.    The  defeatists. 

Reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page   169. 

New  Republic.     17:69-70.     N.  16,  '18.     League  of  nations  cate- 
chism.   P.  W.  Wilson. 
New  Republic.     17:92-4.     N.  23,  '18.     The  core  of  the  trouble. 

H.  G.  Wells. 
New  Republic.    17:116-18.    N.  30,  '18.  America  and  the  league  of 

nations. 
New  Statesman.    9:342-4,  367-9,  392-3,  416-18,  440-1,  465-6.     Jl. 

14,  21,  28,  Ag.  4,  u,  18,  '17.    League  of  nations. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  pages  56  and  109. 

New  Statesman.     10:324-5.     Ja.  5,  '18.     Utopia. 

New    Statesman.     11:365-6.     Ag.    10,    '18.     How   to   make    the 

league. 

New  Statesman.    12:125-9.    N.  16,  '18.    A  league  of  nations. 
New  York  Evening  Post  Magazine,    p.  1-2.    N.  30,  '18.    A  league 

of  nations.     Charles  R.  Van  Hise. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page    134. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxv 

New  York  Times,     p.  4.     Mr.  3,  '18.     Society  of  the  world's 

New  Republic.     16:327-9.     O.  19,  '18.     The  Defeatists. 

nations  to  thwart  the  power  of  Prussia.    Walter  Wellman. 

New  York  Times,  p.  2.  O.  27,  '18.  Germany's  Colonies :  Should 
They  Be  Turned  Over  to  a  Newly-Formed  League  of  Na- 
tions? G.  B.  Gordon. 

New  York  Times.  N.   10,  '18.     Freedom  of  the  seas.     Earl  W. 
Crecraft. 
Reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page  227. 

New  York  Times  Current  History.  8,  pt.2 1345-57.    Ag.  '18.     A 
league  of  nations:  the  project  discussed  from  various  view 
points  by  leading- allied  statesmen  and  publicists. 
Lord  Grey,  Lloyd  George,  Curzon,  H.  G.  Wells  and  Arnold  Bennett. 
An   excerpt   from    the   article   by   Arnold   Bennett   is    reprinted   in    this 

Handbook.      See   page   241. 

New  York  Times  Current  History.    8:511-13.    S.  '18.    President 
Wilson  and  the  league  of  nations.     Herbert  H.  Asquith. 
Speech  before  the  Liberal  Club,  July  4,    1918. 

Nineteenth  Century.  81:689-708.  Mr.  '17.  Leagues  to  en- 
force peace.  Failure  of  the  Holy  Alliance.  John  Hall.  An 
illusion  of  today.  F.  G.  Stone. 

Nineteenth  Century.  81 :799-8io.  Ap.  '17.  American  dream  of 
peace.  Herbert  Stephen. 

Nineteenth  Century.  84:251-9.  Ag.  '18.  Greatest  league  of  na- 
tions. Sydenham  of  Combe. 

Nineteenth  Century.  84:485-506.  S.  '18.  A  Swiss  jurist  on  the 
league  of  nations.  A.  Shadwell. 

North  American  Review.  205 :25-3O.  Ja.  '17.  League  to  en- 
force peace.  A.  Lawrence  Lowell. 

North  American  Review.  205:475-80.  Mr.  '17.  Problems  of 
a  peace  league. 

North  American  Review.  205  :886-94.  Je.  '17.  Can  man  abolish 
war?  Harold  Begbie. 

An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in   this  Handbook.      See   page   252. 

North  American  Review.  208:650-3.  N.  '18.  League,  not 
alliance. 

North  American  Review.  208:665-8.  N.  '18.  A  league  of  na- 
tions and  what  it  could  do.  Sir  Oliver  Lodge. 

North  American  Review.  208 :828-3O.  D.  '18.  League  or  entente. 
John  Jay  Chapman. 

Open  Court,    31 :59-63-    Ja.  '17.    Problems  of  universal  peace. 


xxvi  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Outlook.    114:118-19.    S.  20,  '16.    Mr.  Asquith  endorses  interna- 
tional peace  league. 
Outlook.    114:524-6.    N.  8,  '16.    The  league  of  peace :  Viscount 

Grey  and  Viscount  Bryce. 
Outlook.     115:186-9.     Ja.  31,  '17.     An  international  league  for 

peace. 

Outlook.    119:184-5.    My.  29,  '18.    War  spirit  of  a  peace  league. 
Outlook.    120:576-8.    D.  n,  '18.    A  league  of  nations:  the  origin 

and  growth  of  the  idea. 
Public.    21 :432-5.    Ap.  6,  '18.    International  economic  functions. 

Ordway  Tead. 
Public.    21 :755-8.    Je.  15,  '18.    Political  league  to  enforce  peace. 

Charles  Fremont  Taylor. 

Public.    21 :879-82.    Jl.  13,  '18.     An  experimental  league  of  na- 
tions. 
Public.    21 : 1205-8.    S.  21,  '18.    League  of  nations  and  the  peace 

conference.     Carl  H.  P.  Thurston. 
Public.    21  :i2i2-i3.     S.  21,  '18.     Only  way  to  permanent  peace. 

Lucia  Ames  Mead. 
Public.     21:1285-9.     O.    12,   '18.     League    for    democracy   and 

peace.    Joseph  C.  Allen. 
Public.    21:1338-9.    O.  26,  '18.    A  league  of  nations.    Henry  W. 

Pinkham. 

Reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page  251. 
Public.     21:1384-5.     N.  9,  '18.     World  federation. 
Quarterly  Review.     229:569-75.     Ap.   '18.     Course  of  the  war. 

W.  P.  Blood. 
Review  of  Reviews.     55:148-51.     F.  '17.,    President's  power  to 

act  with  a  peace  league.     Talcott  Williams. 
Review  of  Reviews.    58:73-5.    Jl.  '18.     English-speaking  league. 

P.  W.  Wilson. 
Review  of  Reviews.    58 :322.    S.  '18.    Would  a  league  of  nations 

work? 
Saturday  Evening  Post.    191:10,  52.    N.  23,  '18.    League  of  free 

nations.    H.  G.  Wells. 

Reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page   101. 

Spectator.     118:60-2.     Ja.  20,  '17.     Leagues  to  enforce  peace. 
Spectator.     120:308-9.     Mr.   23,   '18.     Sanctity  of   international 

contracts. 
Spectator.     121 14,  37-9.    Jl.  6-13,  '18.    League  of  nations, 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxvii 

Survey.    36:281-2.    Je.  10,  '16.    Bill  of  rights  for  the  world. 
Survey.     37:491-2.     Ja.  27,   '17.     Constitution     and    the    peace 

league. 
Survey.     38:195.     My.  26,  '17.     Peace  through  a  union  of  free 

nations. 
Survey.     39:137-40.     N.    10,    '17.     Through    liberty   to    world 

peace:   first  congress   of  the   League  of   small  and   subject 

nationalities. 
Survey.     40:607-8.     Ag.   31,   '18.     A  league    of    nations  now? 

Hamilton  Holt. 
Survey.    41:121.    N.  2,  '18.    Pierre  Dubois:  who  dreamed  of  a 

league  of  nations  six  hundred  years  ago.     Lilian  Brandt. 
Survey.    41 :25o-i.    N.  30,  '18.    The  new  League  of  free  nations 

association  :    statement  of  principles. 

Also  printed  in  the  Dial  for  November  30,  1918.  p.  493;  and  the  New 
York  Times  for  December  2,  1918.  See  also  the  Public  for  November  30, 
1918.  p.  1455.  Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.  See  page  47. 
Textile  World.  52:2091.  My.  26,  '17.  Purposes  of  League  to 

enforce  peace.     Charles  W.   Needham. 

Unpopular  Review.  10:244-54.  O.  '18.  Earlier  league  to  en- 
force peace. 

Describes  Sully's  "Great  Design." 

World   Court.     3:72-9.     Mr.   '17.     American   constructive  pro- 
posals for  international  justice.     Charles  H.  Levermore. 
Reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  page  41. 

World  Court.  3:79-83,  113-15,  117.  Mr.  '17.  Four  plans  for 
durable  peace:  a  comparison  of  the  President's  plan,  Penn's 
plan,  the  World  court  league,  and  the  League  to  enforce 
peace,  by  William  I.  Hull;  Kind  of  peace  Socialists  call  for, 
by  V.  I.  Berger  and  others;  Minimum  program  for  organiz- 
ing a  durable  peace. 

World  Court.  3:609-10;  4:11-14,  74-8o,  302-4,  458-63.  D.  '17;  Ja., 
F.,  My.,  Ag.  '18.  Public  opinion  concerning  a  league  of  na- 
tions. 

World  Court.  4:15-17.  Ja. '18.  Marburg  on  a  league  of  nations. 
Samuel  T.  Button. 

World  Court.  4:137-46.  Mr.  '18.  A  league  of  nations.  Nicholas 
Murray  Butler,  Mr.  Asquith,  Lord  Lansdowne,  Lord  Cecil, 
Arthur  Henderson. 

World  Court.  4:202-10.  Ap.  '18.  Cooperative  union  of  nations. 
Alpheus  H.  Snow. 


xxviii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

World  Court.    4:305-7.    My.  '18.    Nationality,  the  league  of  na- 
tions and  the  international  constitution.    Paul  Otlet. 

World  Court.     4:471-5.     Ag.  '18.     Permanent  league  for  inter- 
national justice.     Nicholas  Murray  Butler. 

World  Court.     4:558-64.     S.  '18.     The  great  debate.     Doremus 
Scudden 

World   Court.     4:669-76.     N.   '18.     French   association   for  the 
society  of  nations.     Ferdinand  Buisson.     British  League  of 
free  nations  association.     A  Swedish  view  of  league  pos-- 
sibilities.    Edward  Wavrinsky. 
Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  pages  51   and  53. 

World  Tomorrow.     1 :3i3-i5-    D.  '18.    Fundamentals  of  a  league 
of    nations.    Henri    Lambert. 
Beginning  with  the  December  number  each  issue  will  contain  a  section 

devoted  to  the  discussion  of  the  many  problems  involved  in  the  establish- 
ment and  future  policies  of  a  league   of  nations. 

World's  Work.     30:718-21.     O.  '15.     League  to  enforce  peace. 

A.  Lawrence  Lowell. 
World's  Work.    36:11-13.    My.  '18.    Responsibility  of  a  nation's 

strength. 
Yale  Review.     7:837-53.     Jl.  '18.     Illusions  of  the  belligerents. 

E.  J.  Dillon. 


ORGANIZATIONS 

American  Association  for  International  Conciliation,  Sub-sta- 
tion 84  (407  W.  1 1 7th  St.),  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Publishes  "International  Conciliation,"  monthly.  Subscription  price 
2$c  a  year;  $i  for  5  years.  Special  bulletins  are  issued  also  from  time  to 
time.  Back  numbers  of  "International  Conciliation"  and  the  special  bul- 
letins will  be  sent  to  any  address  post  paid  at  five  cents  each.  A  list  of 
those  available  is  published  in  the  October  issue  for  1918. 

American    Peace    Society,    Colorado    Building,    Washington, 

D.  C. 

Publishes  the   "Advocate  of  Peace"   monthly   except   September.      Sub- 
scription price,   $i    a  year.      Also  handles   the  publication   of  the   Carnegie 
Endowment  for  International  Peace.     A  complete  list  of  these  will  be  fur- 
nished upon  request. 
American  School  Peace  League,  405  Marlborough   St.,  Boston, 

Mass.     Mrs.  Fanny  Fern  Andrews,  Sec. 
Association     to    Abolish    War,     17    Hazlewood     St.,     Roxbury, 

Boston,  Mass. 

Publishes  literature  which  is  sent  on   request. 

California  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  the  Federation  of 
Nations  [Inc.],  Nellie  Wheelwright,  901  3d  Av.,  Los  An- 
geles, Calif. 

Publishes  the  "Federator."      Subscription  price,  soc  a  year. 

Central   Organization    for  a   Durable   Peace,   Theresiastraat  51, 

The  Hague. 

Church  Peace  Union,  70  Fifth  Av.,  New  York,  N.Y. 
Fellowship  of  Reconciliation,  East  28th  St.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Publishes  the  "World   Tomorrow,"   monthly.      Subscription   price,    $i    a 
year. 
French  Association  of  the  Society  of  Nations.     Temporary 

office,  74  Rue  de  1'Universite,  Paris.    M.  Leon  Bourgeois, 

Honorary  President. 
Irish  League  of  Nations  Society,  65  Middle  Abbey  St.,  Dublin, 

E.  A.  Aston  and  W.  G.  Fallon,  B.  A.,  Honorary  Secretaries. 
League  for  Democratic  Control,  Room  428,  Walker  Building, 

120  Boylston  St.,  Boston,  Mass. 

Publishes  "Forward,"  monthly.      Subscription  price,  $i  a  year. 

League  for  Permanent  Peace,  421  Boylston  St.,  Boston,  Mass. 


xxx  ORGANIZATIONS 

League  of  Free  Nations  Association,  130  W.  426.  St.,  New 
York,  N.  Y.     Lincoln  Colcord,  Publicity  Director. 
Membership  $5  a  year.    -Funds  for  publicity  work  derived  from  mem- 
bership fees  and  voluntary  subscriptions.     Circulars  and  publicity  material 
distributed  free  on  request. 

League  of  Nations  Union,  22  Buckingham  Gate,  London,  S.  W.  I. 
Viscount  Grey  of  Falloden,  Pres. 

This  new  society  was  formed  recently  by  the  union  of  the  League  of 
Free  Nations  Association  of  which  Viscount  Bryce  was  Vice-President, 
and  the  League  of  Nations  Society  of  which  the  Rt.  Hon.  W.  H.  Dickin- 
son, M.  P.,  was  Chairman. 

League  of  Nations  for  a  Society  of  Nations  Based  on  an  Inter- 
national Constitution,  5  Cite  Cardinal-Lemoine,  Paris. 
Henri  Lepert,  Sec. 

Publishes  "La  Societe  des  Nations,"  monthly.     Subscription  price,  5  fr. 
a  year,  including  foreign  postage.     First  issue  November,  1917. 
League  to  Enforce  Peace,  130  W.  42d  St.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

William  H.  Taft,  Pres. 

Issues  a  small  weekly  publication  under  the  title  "The  League  Bul- 
letin." Subscription  price,  $i  a  year.  Also  publishes  many  leaflets  and 
circulars  on  the  subject  of  "A  League  of  Nations,"  including  occasional 
digests  of  current  literature  on  the  subject,  all  of  which  are  distributed 
free  of  charge.  The  library  at  Headquarters  is  also  open  for  study  to 
anyone  interested.  Active  membership,  $5  a  year. 

Nederlandsche  Anti-Oorlog  Raad,  Prinsessegracht  19,  'S-Grav- 
enhage,  The  Hague.    Dr.  B.  de  Jong  van  Beek  en  Donk,  Dir. 
Publishes   a   number   of   pamphlets   and   an   official   organ    "De    Toekom- 
stige  Vrede." 

New  York  Peace  Society,  70  Fifth  Av.,  New  York,  N.Y. 
Charles  A.  Levermore,  Sec. 

Publishes  the  "Messenger."      Subscription  price  $i   a  year. 
Woman's    International    League,    70   Fifth   Av.,    New   York, 
N.  Y.     Nell  Vincent,  Sec. 

Issues  occasional  leaflets  and  pamphlets  which  are  distributed  free  or 
for  a  few  cents. 
World  Court  League,  Inc.,  2  West  I3th  St.,  New  York  City., 

Dr.  Nicholas  Murray  Butler,  Pres. 

Publishes    "The    World    Court,"    monthly.       Subscription    price,    $2    a 
year. 
World  Peace  Foundation,  40  Mt.  Vernon  St.,  Boston,  Mass. 

Issues  "A  League  of  Nations,"  bi-monthly.  Subscription  price,  250  a 
year;  $i  for  5  years.  This  publication  is  the  successor  of  the  World  Peace 
Foundation  pamphlet  series.  The  Foundation  '  also  issues  other  publica- 
tions and  pamphlets,  a  list  of  which  will  be  sent  on  request. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS 


INTRODUCTION 

Perhaps  every  war  has  created  in  men's  hearts  the  feeling 
that  there  must  be  no  more  war,  and  that  ways  must  be  found 
whereby  nations  may  live  in  peace  with  one  another  and  yet 
secure  adequate  expression  for  the  national  spirit  and  the  self- 
development  necessary  for  full  and  free  existence.  Early  in  the 
Seventeenth  Century  Sully  set  forth  the  "Grand  Design"  of 
Henry  the  Fourth  whereby  a  "General  Council  of  Europe" 
"would  examine  into  and  determine  all  civil,  political  and 
religious  suits  either  in  Europe  itself  or  arising 'out  of  the  rela- 
tions of  Europe  with  the  world  outside."  St.  Pierre,  William 
Penn,  Alexander  I,  all  conceived  similar  plans  which  they  be- 
lieved would  put  an  end  to  war,  and  the  Holy  Alliance  was 
originally  an  actual  attempt  to  carry  out  the  principle  advocated 
today  in  the  idea  of  a  league  of  nations.  The  fact  that  all  of 
these  projects  embodied  the  very  idea  which  is  urged  today  as 
the  fundamental  basis  of  a  permanent  peace,  might  discourage 
us  from  believing  that  a  league  of  nations  could  be  accomplished 
more  successfully  than  were  they,  were  it  not  perhaps  that  today 
we  shall  be  able  to  see  more  clearly  the  fundamental  defects  in 
our  political,  economic  and  social  systems  that  drive  men  to 
war;  that  perhaps  by  a  study  of  the  history  of  all  the  attempts 
that  have  been  made  to  establish  peace  between  nations  we  can 
see  what  has  heretofore  prevented  us  from  attaining  the  real 
spirit  of  brotherhood  which  must  be  the  basis  of  any  lasting 
peace. 

The  impression  derived  from  a  study  of  the  rather  exten- 
sive literature  that  has  appeared  during  the  last  few  years  is 
well  expressed  by  Mr.  H.  G.  Wells.  Of  the  phrase  "A  League 
of  Nations"  he  says  "It  must  be  confessed  that  to  begin  with 
it  conveyed  to  most  minds  rather  an  aspiration  than  any  detailed 
content.  It  was  little  more  than  the  expression  of  a  desire  for 


2      &  s  Jo"* :' :      SELECTED  ARTICLES 

some  organized  attempt  to  end  war  in  the  world;  in  some  man- 
ner the  states  of  the  world  were  to  come  together  in  a  more  or 
less  binding  pledge  to  substitute  law  for  force  in  their  interac- 
tion. .  .  .  Within  the  frame  supplied  by  this  phrase  however, 
an  enormous  amount  of  mental  activity  has  gone  on,  and  much 
that  was  entirely  vague  has  now  been  thought  out."  One  is^ 
struck  too  by  the  absence,  until  recently,  of  any  real  opposition  ^ 
to  the  idea,  perhaps  because  in  the  minds  of  many  it  was  com- 
fortably destined  to  remain  forever  an  ideal,  and  partly  too  be- 
cause the  active  struggle  to  secure  peace  was  not  conducive,  ex- 
cept on  the  part  of  the  far-seeing  few,  of  any  consideration  of 
methods  where  by  peace  was  to  be  perpetuated  after  it  had  once 
been  secured.  With  the  signing  of  the  armistice  however  the 
league  of  nations  ceases  to  be  merely  a  lofty  ideal.  To  the  more 
or  less  definite  suggestions  that  had  already  been  made  by  the 
Inter-Allied  Socialist  and  Labour  Conference,  by  President 
Wilson,  and  others,  and  by  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  and 
other  organizations,  new  proposals  for  a  league  of  nations  are 
formulating  rapidly  and  new  organizations  are  forming  to  pro- 
mote definite  plans  for  putting  it  into  effect.  The  difficulties  in- 
volved in  its  practical  application  are  also  beginning  to  appear, 
and,  within  the  last  few  weeks,  active  opposition  is  evident. 

In  view  of  the  rapidity  with  which  the  movement  is  now 
progressing,  this  volume  will  be  somewhat  out  of  date,  even  on 
its  issue  from  the  press,  but  it  provides  a  history  of  the  move- 
ment to  date  and  represents  in  the  reprints  all  phases  of  the 
discussion  that  have  appeared  thus  far,  and  therefore  will 
furnish  a  basis  for  study  which  can  and  should  be  supple- 
mented by  recourse  to  the  discussions  that  will  appear  from 
now  on  in  the  press  and  on  the  platform  in  ever-increasing 
quantity. 

In  this  volume  has  been  set  down,  first  of  all,  President 
Wilson's  idea  of  a  league  of  nations  as  developed  thru  his 
speeches  and  state  papers  of  the  last  two  years — ending  with  the 
Metropolitan  speech  of  September  27.  This  has  not  been  chosen 
as  a  definite  proposal  to  which  discussion  should  be  limited  but  to 
give  body  to  the  proposition  at  the  outset  and  to  provide  a  start- 
ing-point for  the  discussion.  In  fact,  it  cannot  be  said,  as  yet, 
that  there  is  a  definite  program  on  which  discussion  can  center. 
Men  are  finding  it  necessary  to  reconstruct  their  ideas  constantly 
in  order  to  keep  pace  with  the  constant  change  of  events.  We 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  3 

have  an  example  of  this  in  the  new  "Victory  Program"  which 
the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  has  just  substituted  for  its  earlier 
platform. 

This  first  division  of  the  volume  is  followed  by  a  series  of 
reprints  selected  to  furnish  the  necessary  historical  background 
and  to  show  how  public  opinion  is  reacting  to  the  idea  of  a 
league  of  nations  at  the  present  moment.  A  special  effort  has 
been  made  to  include  the  latest  material  available  to  date  de- 
scribing the  various  organizations  that  have  been  formed  to 
promote  a  league  of  nations  as  a  part  of  the  peace  settlement. 
Although  no  organization  has  yet  appeared  for  the  single  pur- 
pose of  combatting  the  idea,  the  discussion  which  occupies  the 
most  of  this  volume  sets  forth  the  arguments  of  the  opposition 
as  well  as  those  in  favor. 

This  has  been  followed  by  brief  statements  of  endorsements 
from  prominent  men,  governments,  various  organizations  and 
peace  societies.  Many  of  these  endorse  the  general  idea  only 
and  do  not  support  a  particular  plan.  They  serve  to  show  the 
amount  of  attention  that  has  been  given  to  the  question  and 
from  what  varied  sources  the  suggestion  has  come. 

In  the  discussion  following  two  aims  have  been  kept  in  view ; 
to  give  expression  to  the  various  conceptions  of  a  league  of  na- 
tions as  put  forth  by  its  advocates,  and  to  voice  the  difficulties 
and  objections  as  they  have  been  given.  The  plans  that  have 
been  presented  vary  all  the  way  from  timid  schemes  for  a  mere 
rehabilitation  of  the  Hague,  to  the  broad  and  comprehensive 
scope  conceived  of  by  Mr.  H.  G.  Wells,  or  the  British  Labour 
Party.  The  opposition  is  divided  also  between  those  who,  like 
Senator  Reed;  oppose  the  entire  scheme  of  a  league  of  nations, 
and  those  who  approve  the  idea  but  are  troubled  as  to  its  bear- 
ing on  such  problems  as  the  freedom  of  the  seas,  the  Monroe 
Doctrine,  the  self-determination  of  peoples,  disarmament,  and 
the  degree  of  sovereignty  that  must  be  relinquished  by  the 
various  entering  nations  if  the  league  is  to  be  a  real  success. 
The  compiler  has  striven  to  select  impartially  and  as  judiciously 
as  possible  from  the  material  available,  all  that  would  give  light 
on  the  various  ideas  that  have  been  presented,  especially  in  regard 
to  the  questions  that  will  be  matters  of  controversy  in  connection 
with  the  peace  settlement. 

While  it  is  hoped  that  the  articles  collected  in  this  volume 


4  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

will  enable  the  reader  to  gain  an  intelligent  understanding  of 
this  question,  doubtless  many  persons  will  wish  to  make  a  more 
extensive  study.  For  their  convenience  a  bibliography  has  been 
included  of  the  more  important  books  and  periodical  articles 
on  this  subject.  With  a  few  exceptions,  these  have  been  pub- 
lished during  the  past  two  years,  but  the  various  bibliographies 
that  have  been  listed  will  give  access  to  earlier  articles.  Of 
later  material  the  reader  will  probably  find  no  dearth  in  the 
periodicals  and  newspapers  he  is  accustomed  to  consult.  For  his 
assistance  however  it  might  be  acceptable  to  name  a  few  of  the 
periodicals  that  are  devoting  or  can  be  expected  to  devote  much 
space  to  the  subject,  as  the  Advocate  of  Peace,  the  World  Court, 
the  New  Republic;  also  the  propagandist  material  of  the  various 
peace  societies  and  league  of  nations  associations  which  have 
been  listed  on  another  page  of  this  volume.  For  the  opposition, 
doubtless  more  material  will  be  forthcoming  in  the  Congressional 
Record,  like  the  speeches  in  the  Senate  of  November  15  and  21, 
published  in  the  Record  of  the  same  dates,  and  many  of  the 
daily  papers  can  be  relied  upon  to  represent  this  side. 

It  is  hoped  that  every  citizen  will  give  earnest  and  reflective 
thought  to  this  great  question  and  thus  take  his  part  in  the  great 
settlement  EDITH  M.  PHELPS. 

December  6,  1918. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  AS  ADVOCATED 
BY  WOODROW  WILSON ' 

I  pray  God  that  if  this  contest  have  no  other  result  it  will 
at  least  have  the  result  of  creating  an  international  tribune 
and  producing  some  sort  of  joint  guarantee  of  peace  on  the 
part  of  the  great  nations  of  the  world. — Address  at  Des  Moines, 
Iowa,  February  i,  1916. 

If  it  should  ever  be  our  privilege  to  suggest  or  initiate  a 
movement  for  peace  among  the  nations  now  at  war,  I  am 
sure  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  would  wish  their 
government  to  move  along  the  line  .  .  .  second,  an  universal 
association  of  the  nations  to  maintain  the  inviolate  security 
of  the  highway  of  the  seas  for  the  common  and  unhindered 
use  of  all  the  nations  of  the  world,  and  to  prevent  any  war 
begun  either  contrary  to  treaty  covenants  or  without  warn- 
ing and  full  submission  of  the  causes  to  the  opinion  of  the 
world — a  virtual  guarantee  of  territorial  integrity  and  politi- 
cal independence.  ...  I  feel  that  the  world  is  even  now  upon 
the  eve  of  a  great  consummation,  when  some  common  force 
will  be  brought  into  existence  which  shall  safeguard  right  as 
the  first  and  most  fundamental  interest  of  all  peoples  and  all 
governments,  when  coercion  shall  be  summoned  not  to  the 
service  of  political  ambition  or  selfish  hostility,  but  to  the 
service  of  a  common  order,  a  common  justice,  and  a  common 
peace." — Address  to  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  Washington, 
D.  C.,  May  27,  1916. 

I  shall  never  myself  consent  to  an  entangling  alliance,  but 
would  gladly  assent  to  a  disentangling  alliance,  an  alliance  which 
would  disentangle  the  peoples  of  the  world  from  those  combina- 
tions in  which  they  seek  their  own  separate  and  private  interests, 
and  unite  the  peoples  of  the  world  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the 
world  upon  a  basis  of  common  right  and  justice.  There  is  liberty 
there,  not  limitation.  There  is  freedom,  not  entanglement.  There 

1  Excerpts  from  the  addresses  and  state  papers  of  Woodrow  Wilson, 
President  of  the  United  States. 


6  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

is  the  achievement  of  the  highest  thing  for  which  the  United 
States  has  declared  its  principles. — Address  at  Arlington  National 
Cemetery,  May  30,  1916. 

We  believe  that  the  time  has  come  when  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
United  States  to  join  with  the  other  nations  of  the  world  in  any 
feasible  association  that  will  effectively  secure  those  principles 
to  maintain  inviolate  the  complete  security  of  the  highway  of 
the  seas  for  the  complete  and  unhindered  use  of  all  nations. — 
Public  Address,  June  17,  1916. 

When  we  look  forward  to  the  years  to  come — I  wish  I  could 
say  the  months  to  come — to  the  end  of  this  war,  we  want  all 
the  world  to  know  that  we  are  ready  to  lend  our  force  without 
stint  to  the  preservation  of  peace  in  the  interest  of  mankind. 
The  world  is  no  longer  divided  into  little  circles  of  interest. 
The  world  no  longer  consists  of  neighborhoods.  The  world  is 
linked  together  in  a  common  life  and  interest  such  as  humanity 
never  saw  before,  and  the  starting  of  wars  can  never  again  be 
a  private  and  individual  matter  for  the  nations.  What  disturbs 
the  life  of  the  whole  world  is  the  concern  of  the  whole  world, 
and  it  is  our  duty  to  lend  the  full  force  of  this  nation,  moral 
and  physical,  to  a  league  of  nations  which  shall  see  to  it  that 
nobody  disturbs  the  peace  of  the  world  without  submitting  his 
case  first  to  the  opinion  of  mankind. — Semi-Centennial  Address 
at  Omaha,  Nebraska,  October  6,  1916. 

The  nations  of  the  world  must  get  together  and  say  that 
nobody  can  hereafter  be  neutral  as  respects  the  disturbance  of 
the  world's  peace  for  an  object  which  the  world's  opinion  cannot 
sanction.  The  world's  peace  ought  to  be  disturbed  if  the  funda- 
mental rights  of  humanity  are  invaded,  but  it  ought  not  to  be  dis- 
turbed for  any  other  thing  that  I  can  think  of,  and  America  was 
established  in  order  to  indicate,  at  any  rate  in  one  government, 
the  fundamental  rights  of  man.  America  must  hereafter  be 
ready  as  a  member  of  the  family  of  nations  to  exert  her  whole 
force,  moral  and  physical,  to  the  assertion  of  those  rights 
throughout  the  round  globe. — Address  before  the  Woman's  City 
Club  of  Cincinnati,  October  25,  1916. 

No  covenant  of  cooperative  peace  that  does  not  include  the 
peoples  of  the  New  World  can  suffice  to  keep  the  future  safe 
against  war,  and  yet  there  is  only  one  sort  of  peace  that  the 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  7 

people  of  America  can  join  in  guaranteeing.  .  .  .  Mere  agree- 
ments may  not  make  peace  secure.  It  will  be  absolutely  neces- 
sary that  a  force  be  created  as  a  guarantor  of  the  permanency  of 
the  settlement  so  much  greater  than  the  force  of  any  nation  now 
engaged,  or  any  alliance  hitherto  formed  or  projected,  that  no 
nation,  no  probable  combination  of  nations,  could  face  or  with- 
stand it.  If  the  peace  presently  to  be  made  is  to  endure,  it  must 
be  a  peace  made  secure  by  the  organized  major  force  of  man- 
kind. 

And  in  holding  out  the  expectation  that  the  people  and  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  will  join  the  other  civilized  nations 
of  the  world  in  guaranteeing  the  permanence  of  peace  upon  such 
terms  as  I  have  named,  I  speak  with  the  greater  boldness  and 
confidence  because  it  is  clear  to  every  man  who  can  think  that 
there  is  in  this  promise  no  breach  in  either  our  traditions  or  our 
policy  as  a  nation,  but  a  fulfilment  rather  of  all  that  we  have 
professed  or  striven  for. 

I  am  proposing,  as  it  were,  that  the  nations  should  with  one 
accord  adopt  the  doctrine  of  President  Monroe  as  the  doctrine 
of  the  world :  that  no  nation  should  seek  to  extend  its  policy  over 
any  other  nation  or  people,  but  that  every  people  should  be  left 
free  to  determine  its  own  policy,  its  own  way  of  development, 
unhindered,  unthreatened,  unafraid,  the  little  along  with  the 
great  and  powerful. 

I  am  proposing  that  all  nations  henceforth  avoid  entangling 
alliances  which  would  draw  them  into  competitions  of  power, 
catch  them  in  a  net  of  intrigue  and  selfish  rivalry,  and  disturb 
their  own  affairs  with  influences  intruded  from  without.  There 
is  no  entangling  alliance  in  a  concert  of  power.  When  all  unite 
to  act  in  the  same  sense  and  with  the  same  purpose,  all  act  in 
the  common  interest  and  are  free  to  live  their  own  lives  under 
a  common  protection. 

I  am  proposing  government  by  the  consent  of  the  governed; 
that  freedom  of  the  seas  which  in  international  conference  after 
conference  representatives  of  the  United  States  have  urged  with 
the  eloquence  of  those  who  are  the  convinced  disciples  of  Lib- 
erty; and  that  moderation  of  armaments  which  makes  of  armies 
and  navies  a  power  for  order  merely,  not  an  instrument  of 
aggression  or  of  selfish  violence. 


8  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

These  are  American  principles,  American  policies.  We  can 
stand  for  no  others.  And  they  are  also  the  principles  and  policies 
of  forward-looking  men  and  women  everywhere,  of  every  modern 
nation,  of  every  enlightened  community.  They  are  the  prin- 
ciples of  mankind  and  must  prevail. — Address  to  the  Senate, 
January  22,  1917. 

A  steadfast  concert  for  peace  can  never  be  maintained  except 
by  a  partnership  of  democratic  nations.  No  autocratic  Govern- 
ment could  be  trusted  to  keep  faith  within  it  or  observe  its 
covenants.  It  must  be  a  league  of  honor,  a  partnership  of 
opinion.  Intrigue  would  eat  its  vitals  away;  the  plottings  of 
inner  circles  who  could  plan  what  they  would  and  render  account 
to  no  one  would  be  a  corruption  seated  at  its  very  heart.  Only 
free  peoples  can  hold  their  purpose  and  their  honor  steady  to  a 
common  end  and  prefer  the  interests  of  mankind  to  any  narrow 
interest  of  their  own. 
************* 

The  world  must  be  made  safe  for  democracy.  Its  peace  must 
be  planted  upon  the  tested  foundations  of  political  liberty.  We 
have  no  selfish  ends  to  serve.  We  desire  no  conquest,  no  domin- 
ion. We  seek  no  indemnities  for  ourselves,  no  material  com- 
pensation for  the  sacrifices  we  shall  freely  make.  We  are  but 
one  of  the  champions  of  the  rights  of  mankind.  We  shall  be 
satisfied  when  those  rights  have  been  made  as  secure  as  the 
faith  and  the  freedom  of  nations  can  make  them.  .  .  . 

It  is  a  distressing  and  oppressive  duty,  Gentlemen  of  the  Con- 
gress, which  I  have  performed  in  thus  addressing  you.  There 
are,  it  may  be,  many  months  of  fiery  trial  and  sacrifice  ahead  of 
us.  It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  lead  this  great,  peaceful  people  into 
war,  into  the  most  terrible  and  disastrous  of  all  wars,  civilization 
itself  seeming  to  be  in  the  balance.  But  the  right  is  more 
precious  than  peace,  and  we  shall  fight  for  the  things  which  we 
have  always  carried  nearest  our  hearts — for  democracy,  for  the 
right  of  those  who  submit  to  authority  to  have  a  voice  in  their 
own  governments,  for  the  rights  and  liberties  of  small  nations, 
for  a  universal  dominion  of  right  by  such  a  concert  of  free 
peoples  as  shall  bring  peace  and  safety  to  all  nations  and  make 
the  world  itself  at  last  free.  To  such  a  task  we  can  dedicate  our 
lives  and  our  fortunes,  everything  that  we  are  and  everything 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  9 

that  we  have,  with  the  pride  of  those  who  know  that  the  day  has 
come  when  America  is  privileged  to  spend  her  blood  and  her 
might  for  the  principles  that  gave  her  birth  and  happiness  and 
the  peace  which  she  has  treasured.  God  helping  her,  she  can  do 
no  other. — War  Message  to  Congress,  April  2,  1917. 

The  free  peoples  of  the  world  must  draw  together  in  some 
common  covenant,  some  genuine  and  practical  cooperation  that 
will  in  effect  combine  their  force  to  secure  peace  and  justice  in 
the  dealings  of  nations  with  one  another.  The  brotherhood  of 
mankind  must  no  longer  be  a  fair  but  empty  phrase;  it  must  be 
given  a  structure  of  force  and  reality.  The  nations  must  realize 
their  common  life  and  effect  a  workable  partnership  to  secure  that 
life  against  the  aggressions  of  autocratic  and  self-pleasing  power. 
— Message  to  the  Russian  Government,  published  June  10,  1917. 

The  worst  that  can  happen  to  the  detriment  of  the  German 
people  is  this,  that  if  they  should  still,  after  the  war  is  over, 
continue  to  be  obliged  to  live  under  ambitious  and  intriguing 
masters  interested  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  world,  men  or 
classes  of  men  whom  the  other  peoples  of  the  world  could  not 
trust,  it  might  be  impossible  to  admit  them  to  the  partnership  of 
nations  which  must  henceforth  guarantee  the  world's  peace.  That 
partnership  must  be  a  partnership  of  peoples,  not  a  mere  partner- 
ship of  governments. — Message  to  Congress,  December  14,  1917. 

We  entered  this  war  because  violations  of  right  had  occurred 
which  touched  us  to  the  quick  and  made  the  life  of  our  own 
people  impossible  unless  they  were  corrected  and  the  world 
secure  once  for  all  against  their  recurrence. 

What  we  demand  in  this  war,  therefore,  is  nothing  peculiar  to 
ourselves.  It  is  that  the  world  be  made  fit  and  safe  to  live  in 
and  particularly  that  it  be  made  safe  for  every  peace-loving 
nation  which,  like  our  own,  wishes  to  live  its  own  life,  determine 
its  own  institutions,  be  assured  of  justice  and  fair  dealing  by  the 
other  peoples  of  the  world  as  against  force  and  selfish  aggres- 
sion. 

All  the  peoples  of  the  world  are  in  effect  partners  in  this  in- 
terest, and  for  our  own  part  we  see  very  clearly  that  unless  jus- 
tice be  done  to  others  it  will  not  be  done  to  us.  The  program  of 
the  world's  peace,  therefore,  is  our  program;  and  that  program, 
the  only  possible  program,  as  we  see  it,  is  this : 


io  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

1.  Open  covenants  of  peace,  openly  arrived  at,  after  which 
there  shall  be  no  private  international  understandings  of  any  kind 
but  diplomacy   shall  proceed   always   frankly  and  in  the  public 
view. 

2.  Absolute   freedom   of   navigation  upon  the   seas,   outside 
territorial  waters,  alike  in  peace  and  in  war,  except  as  the  seas 
may  be  closed  in  whole  or  in  part  by  international  action  for  the 
enforcement  of  international  covenants. 

3.  The  removal,  so  far  as  possible,  of  all  economic  barriers 
and  the  establishment  of  an  equality  of  trade  conditions  among 
all  the  nations  consenting  to  the  peace  and  associating  themselves 
for  its  maintenance. 

4.  Adequate  guarantees  given  and  taken  that  national  arma- 
ments will  be  reduced  to  the  lowest  points  consistent  with 
domestic  safety. 

5.  A  free,  open-minded,  and  absolutely  impartial  adjustment 
of  all  colonial  claims,  based  upon  a  strict  observance  of  the  prin- 
ciple that  in  determining  all  such  questions  of  sovereignty  the 
interests  of  the  populations  concerned  must  have  equal  weight 
with  the  equitable  claims  of  the  government  whose  title  is  to  be 
determined. 

6.  The  evacuation  of  all  Russian  territory  and  such  a  settle- 
ment of  all  questions  affecting  Russia  as  will  secure  the  best  and 
freest  cooperation  of  the  other  nations  of  the  world  in  obtaining 
for  her  an  unhampered  and  unembarrassed  opportunity  for  the  in- 
dependent determination  of  her  own  political  development  and 
national  policy  and  assure  her  of  a  sincere  welcome  into  the 
society  of  free  nations  under  institutions  of  her  own  choosing; 
and,  more  than  a  welcome,  assistance  also  of  every  kind  that  she 
may  need  and  may  herself   desire.     The    treatment    accorded 
Russia  by  her  sister  nations  in  the  months  to  come  will  be  the 
acid  test  of  their  good  will,  of  their  comprehension  of  her  needs 
as  distinguished  from  their  own  interests,  and  of  their  intelli- 
gent and  unselfish  sympathy. 

7.  Belgium,  the  whole  world  will  agree,  must  be  evacuated 
and  restored,  without  any  attempt  to  limit  the  sovereignty  which 
she  enjoys  in  common  with  all  other  free  nations.     No  other 
single  act  will  serve  as  this  will  serve    to    restore  confidence 
among  the  nations  in  the  laws  which  they  have  themselves  set 
and  determined  for  the  government  of  their  relations  with  one 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  11 

another.    Without  this  healing  act  the  whole  structure  and  valid- 
ity of  international  law  is  forever  impaired. 

8.  All  French  territory  should  be  freed  and  the  invaded  por- 
tions restored,  and  the  wrong  done  to  France  by  Prussia  in  1871 
in  the  matter  of  Alsace-Lorraine,  which  has  unsettled  the  peace 
of  the  world  for  nearly  fifty  years,  should  be  righted,  in  order 
that  peace  may  once  more  be  made  secure  in  the  interest  of  all. 

9.  A  readjustment  of  the  frontiers  of  Italy  should  be  ef- 
fected along  clearly  recognizable  lines  of  nationality. 

10.  The   peoples   of   Austria-Hungary,    whose   place   among 
the  nations  we  wish  to  see  safe-guarded  and  assured,  should  be 
accorded  the  freest  opportunity  of  autonomous  development. 

11.  Rumania,  Serbia,  and  Montenegro  should  be  evacuated; 
occupied  territories  restored;  Serbia  accorded  free  and  secure 
access  to  the  sea;  and  the  relations  of  the  several  Balkan  states 
to  one  another  determined  by  friendly  counsel  along  historically 
established  lines  of  allegiance  and  nationality;  and  international 
guarantees  of  the  political  and  economic  independence  and  ter- 
ritorial integrity  of  the  several  Balkan  states  should  be  entered 
into. 

12.  The  Turkish  portions  of   the  present  Ottoman   Empire 
should  be  assured  a  secure  sovereignty,  but  the  other  national- 
ities which  are  now  under  Turkish  rule  should  be  assured  an 
undoubted  security  of  life  and  an  absolutely  unmolested  oppor- 
tunity of  autonomous  development,  and  the  Dardenelles  should 
be  permanently  opened  as  a  free  passage  to  the  ships  and  com- 
merce of  all  nations  under  international  guarantees. 

13.  An  independent   Polish   State   should  be   erected  which 
should  include  the  territories  inhabited  by  indisputably  Polish 
populations,  which  should  be  assured  a  free  and  secure  access  to 
the  sea,  and  whose  political  and  economic  independence  and  ter- 
ritorial integrity  should  be  guaranteed  by  international  covenant. 

14.  A  general  association  of  nations  must  be  formed  under 
specific  covenants  for  the  purpose  of  affording  mutual  guaran- 
tees of  political  independence  and  territorial  integrity  to  great 
and  small  states  alike. 

In  regard  to  these  essential  rectifications  of  wrong  and  asser- 
tions of  right  we  feel  ourselves  to  be  intimate  partners  of  all  the 
governments  and  peoples  associated  together  against  the  im- 


12  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

perialists.    We  cannot  be  separated  in  interest  or  divided  in  pur- 
pose.   We  stand  together  until  the  end. 

For  such  arrangements  and  covenants  we  are  willing  to  fight 
and  continue  to  fight  until  they  are  achieved;  but  only  because 
we  wish  the  right  to  prevail  and  desire  a  just  and  stable  peace 
such  as  can  be  secured  only  by  removing  the  chief  provocations 
to  war,  which  this  program  does  remove. — Address  to  Congress, 
January  8,  1918. 

It  will  be  necessary  that  all  who  sit  down  at  the  peace 
table  shall  come  ready  and  willing  to  pay  the  price,  the  only 
price,  that  will  procure  it;  and  ready  and  willing,  also,  to 
create  in  some  virile  fashion  the  only  instrumentality  by 
which  it  can  be  made  certain  that  the  agreements  of  the 
peace  will  be  honored  and  fulfilled. 

That  price  is  impartial  justice  in  every  item  of  the  set- 
tlement, no  matter  whose  interest  is  crossed;  and  not  only 
impartial  justice,  but  also  the  satisfaction  of  the  several  peo- 
ples whose  fortunes  are  dealt  with.  That  indispensable  in- 
strumentality is  a  League  of  Nations  formed  under  covenants 
that  will  be  efficacious.  Without  such  an  instrumentality,  by 
which  the  peace  of  the  world  can  be  guaranteed,  peace  will 
rest  in  part  upon  the  word  of  outlaws,  and  only  upon  that 
word.  For  Germany  will  have  to  redeem  her  character,  not 
by  what  happens  at  the  peace  table,  but  by  what  follows. 

And,  as  I  see  it,  the  constitution  of  that  League  of  Na- 
tions and  the  clear  definition  of  its  objects  must  be  a  part, 
is  in  a  sense  the  most  essential  part,  of  the  peace  settlement 
itself.  It  cannot  be  formed  now.  If  formed  now,  it  would 
be  merely  a  new  alliance  confined  to  the  nations  associated 
against  a  common  enemy.  It  is  not  likely  that  it  could  be 
formed  after  the  settlement.  It  is  necessary  to  guarantee  the 
peace,  and  the  peace  cannot  be  guaranteed  as  an  afterthought. 
The  reason,  to  speak  in  plain  terms  again,  why  it  must  be 
guaranteed  is  that  there  will  be  parties  to  the  peace  whose 
promises  have  proved  untrustworthy,  and  means  must  be 
found  in  connection  with  the  peace  settlement  itself  to  re- 
move that  source  of  insecurity.  It  would  be  folly  to  leave  the 
guarantee  to  the  subsequent  voluntary  action  of  the  Govern- 
ments we  have  seen  destroy  Russia  and  deceive  Rumania. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  13 

But  these  general  terms  do  not  disclose  the  whole  matter. 
Some  details  are  needed  to  make  them  sound  less  like  a 
thesis  and  more  like  a  practical  program.  These,  then,  are 
some  of  the  particulars,  and  I  state  them  with  the  greater 
confidence  because  I  can  state  them  authoritatively  as 
representing  this  Government's  interpretation  of  its  own 
duty  with  regard  to  peace: 

First,  the  impartial  justice  meted  out  must  involve  no  dis- 
crimination between  those  to  whom  we  wish  to  be  just  and 
those  to  whom  we  do  not  wish  to  be  just.  It  must  be  a 
justice  that  plays  no  favorites  and  knows  no  standards  but 
the  equal  rights  of  the  several  peoples  concerned; 

Second,  no  special  or  separate  interest  of  any  single  nation 
or  any  group  of  nations  can  be  made  the  basis  of  any  part 
of  the  settlement  which  is  not  consistent  with  the  common 
interest  of  all; 

Third,  there  can  be  no  leagues  or  alliances  or  special 
covenants  and  understandings  within  the  general  and  com- 
mon family  of  the  League  of  Nations; 

Fourth,  and  more  specifically,  there  can  be  no  special, 
selfish  economic  combinations  within  the  league  and  no  em- 
ployment of  any  form  of  economic  boycott  or  exclusion  ex- 
cept as  the  power  of  economic  penalty  by  exclusion  from  the 
markets  of  the  world  may  be  vested  in  the  League  of  Na- 
tions itself  as  a  means  of  discipline  and  control; 

Fifth,  all  international  agreements  and  treaties  of  every 
kind  must  be  made  known  in  their  entirety  to  the  rest  of  the 
world. 

Special  alliances  and  economic  rivalries  and  hostilities 
have  been  the  prolific  source  in  the  modern  world  of  the 
plans  and  passions  that  produce  war.  It  would  be  an  in- 
sincere as  well  as  an  insecure  peace  that  did  not  exclude  them 
in  definite  and  binding  terms. 

The  confidence  with  which  I  venture  to  speak  for  our 
people  in  these  matters  does  not  spring  from  our  traditions 
merely  and  the  well-known  principles  of  international  action 
which  we  have  always  professed  and  followed.  In  the  same 
sentence  in  which  I  say  that  the  United  States  will  enter  into 
no  special  arrangements  or  understandings  with  particular 
nations  let  me  say  also  that  the  United  States  is  prepared 


14  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

to  assume  its  full  share  of  responsibility  for  the  maintenance 
of  the  common  covenants  and  understandings  upon  which 
peace  must  henceforth  rest.  We  still  read  Washington's  im- 
mortal warning  against  "entangling  alliances"  with  full 
comprehension  and  an  answering  purpose.  But  only  special 
and  limited  alliances  entangle;  and  we  recognize  and  accept 
the  duty  of  a  new  day  in  which  we  are  permitted  to  hope  for 
a  general  alliance  which  will  avoid  entanglements  and  clear 
the  air  of  the  world  for  common  understandings  and  the 
maintenance  of  common  rights. — Address  at  the  Metropolitan 
Opera  House,  New  York,  September  27,  1918. 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND 


HISTORICAL     SURVEY     OF     PROJECTS     OF 
UNIVERSAL  PEACE 1 

The  first  of  the  long  series  of  "projects  of  perpetual  peace"— 
the  Grand  Design,  which  Sully  ascribes  to  Henry  IV.  of  France 
— was  directed  quite  frankly,  so  far  as  it  had  any  substance  at 
all,  against  the  [Holy  Empire] ;  was,  in  fact,  in  its  idea  at  least, 
little  more  than  a  strategical  move  in  the  secular  conflict  between 
France  and  Austria.  Yet,  though  Sully  says  that  its  realization 
would  have  dealt  a  mortal  blow  at  the  imperial  authority,  the 
emperor  was  to  be  the  chief  or  first  magistrate  of  this  new 
"Christian  Republic";  but,  in  order  to  put  an  end  to  Hapsburg 
dominance,  he  was  not  to  be  chosen  from  the  same  house  twice 
in  succession.  For  the  rest,  the  "Grand  Design,"  which  Sully 
says  was  first  suggested  by  Queen  Elizabeth,  was  a  singular  an- 
ticipation of  certain  modern  developments.  Italy,  for  instance, 
was  to  be  unified  as  a  "Republic  of  the  Church"  under  the  Pope 
(one  remembers  Gioberti's  dream),  and  the  dukes  of  Savoy 
were  to  become  kings  of  Lombardy;  while  the  independence  of 
Belgium  under  a  foreign  dynasty  is  foreshadowed  by  the  singu- 
lar idea  that  the  Low  Countries  should  be  carved  into  a  series 
of  fiefs  for  English  princes  or  "milords." 

As  for  the  General  Council  of  Europe,  over  which  the 
emperor  was  to  preside,  this  was  to  be  modeled,  with  certain 
necessary  modifications,  on  the  Amphictyonic  Council  of  Greece, 
and  to  consist  of  a  perpetual  senate  of  sixty- four  commissioners 
or  plenipotentiaries,  four  from  each  great  power,  two  from  each 
lesser  power,  renewable  every  three  years.  The  function  of  this 
senate  was  to  be  to  deliberate  on  affairs  as  they  arose;  to  discuss 
matters  of  common  interest ;  to  settle  disputes ;  to  examine  into 
and  determine  all  civil,  political,  and  religious  suits  either  in 

1  By  Walter  Alison  Phillips.  Reprinted  from  Books  and  Reading. 
1:88-95.  October,  1918.  Mr.  Phillips  is  author  of  "The  Confederation  of 
Europe"  from  which  this  excerpt  was  taken  originally. 


16  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Europe  itself  or  arising  out  of  the  relations  of  Europe  with  the 
world  outside. 

Such  was  the  Grand  Design,  which  Sully  recommended  in 
language  which  anticipates  that  of  the  rescript  of  the  Emperor 
Nicholas  II.  "He  found  the  secret  of  persuading  all  his  neigh- 
bors that  his  only  object  was  to  spare  himself  and  them  these 
immense  sums  which  it  costs  them  to  maintain  so  many  thousands 
of  fighting  men,  so  many  fortified  places,  and  other  military 
expenses;  to  deliver  them  forever  from  the  fear  of  bloody  catas- 
trophes, so  common  in  Europe ;  to  secure  for  them  an  unalterable 
repose,  so  that  all  the  princes  might  henceforth  live  together  as 
brothers." 

It  is  on  this  Grand  Design  that  all  other  projects  of  peace, 
directly  or  indirectly,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  are  based — 
from  that  which  Emeric  Cruce  gave  to  the  world  under  the  title 
of  "Le  Nouveau  Cynee,"  two  years  before  Grotius  published  his 
"Le  Jure  Belli  et  Pads,"  to  the  latest  program  of  the  modern 
peace  societies.  It  inspired  the  "Projet  de  Paix  Per- 
petuelle"  of  the  Abbe  de  St.  Pierre,  and  through  him 
the  Emperor  Alexander  I.'s  idea  of  a  universal  Holy  Al- 
liance. It  may  have  played  its  part  in  forming  the  schemes  of 
one  whose  name  is  not  usually  associated  with  projects  of  peace — 
Napoleon.  Among  the  conversations  of  the  great  emperor  re- 
corded by  the  Comte  de  Las  Cases,  in  his  "Memorial  de  Sainte 
Helene,"  is  one  in  which  Napoleon  explains  the  grand  design 
which  had  underlain  all  his  policy.  He  had  aimed,  he  said,  at  concen- 
trating the  great  European  peoples,  divided  hitherto  by  a  multi- 
plicity of  artificial  boundaries,  into  homogeneous  nations,  which 
he  would  have  formed  into  a  confederation  bound  together  "by 
unity  of  codes,  principles,  opinions,  feelings,  and  interests."  At 
the  head  of  the  league,  under  the  aegis  of  his  empire,  was  to 
have  been  a  central  assembly,  modeled  on  the  American  Con- 
gress or  the  Amphictyonic  Assembly  of  Greece,  to  watch  over 
the  common  weal  of  "the  great  European  family."  Whether  this 
plan  had  ever  been  seriously  contemplated  or  not,  it  is  easy  to 
recognize  in  it  the  source  of  its  inspiration. 

The  "Projet  de  Traite  pour  rendre  la  Paix  Perpetuelle"  of 
the  Abbe  de  St.  Pierre  was  published  in  1713,  immediately  after 
the  signature  of  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht.  Its  immediate  effect 
was,  of  course,  insignificant.  The  abbe,  Rousseau  scornfully 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  17 

said,  was  trying  to  do  by  publishing  a  book  what  Henry  IV.  had 
failed  to  do  with  the  power  of  France  behind  him,  and  with  the 
aid  of. the  universal  dread  of  Austrian  ambitions,  which  sup- 
plied a  stronger  motive  than  any  care  for  common  interests. 
But  the  abbe's  project  was  destined  to  exert  considerable  prac- 
tical influence  later,  and  this  gives  to  his  proposals  and  ^  to  the 
comments  of  his  critics  a  permanent  interest. 

The  social  order  of  Europe,  he  urges,  is  still  largely  de- 
termined by  the  passions  rather  than  by  reason.  We  are  in  civil 
relations  with  our  fellow  citizens,  but  with  the  rest  of  the  world 
we  are  in  the  state  of  nature.  Thus  we  have  abolished  private 
wars,  only  in  order  to  set  aflame  general  wars,  which 
are  a  thousand  times  more  terrible;  and  in  forming  par- 
tial alliances  we  make  ourselves,  in  effect,  enemies  of  the 
human  race.  Now,  Christianity,  he  argues  has  given  to  the  na- 
tions of  Europe,  in  religion,  morals,  and  customs,  and  even  in 
laws,  the  impress  of  a  single  society — to  such  a  point  that  those 
peoples  which,  like  the  Turks,  have  become  European  in  a  geo- 
graphical sense  without  becoming  Christians  have  been  regarded 
as  strangers;  and  between  the- members  of  this  commonwealth 
"the  ancient  image  of  the  Roman  Empire  has  continued  to  form 
a  sort  of  bond." 

But  the  public  law  of  Europe,  not  being  established  or  au- 
thorized in  concert,  having  no  foundation  of  general  principle, 
and  varying  incessantly  in  different  times  and  places,  is  full  of 
contradictory  rules,  which  can  only  be  reconciled  by  the  right  of 
the  stronger.  Now,  every  society  is  based  on  a  consciousness  of 
common  interests,  while  all  divisions  are  caused  by  interests  that 
are  opposed,  and  both  common  and  private  interests  may  vary 
with  a  thousand  changes  of  circumstance.  In  every  society, 
then,  it  is  necessary  that  there  should  be  a  coercive  power  to 
command  and  concert  the  movements  of  its  members,  and,  to 
form  a  solid  and  durable  European  confederation,  it  would  be 
necessary  to  place  all  i,ts  constitutent  states  in  such  a  condition 
of  mutual  dependence  that  no  one  of  them  should  be  in  a  posi- 
tion to  resist  the  rest.  If,  under  the  system  of  the  balance  of 
power,  states  are  limited  in  their  opportunities  for  aggression, 
what  would  their  position  be  when  there  is  a  great  armed  league, 
ever  ready  to  prevent  those  who  might  wish  to  destroy  or  resist 
it?  Such  a  league  would  not  waste  its  time  in  idle  deliberations, 


18  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

but  would  form  an  effective  power,  able  to  force  the  ambitious 
to  keep  within  the  terms  of  the  general  treaty. 

The  nucleus  or  model  of  such  a  league  was  already  in  ex- 
istence in  the  "Germanic  Body,"  as  constituted  by  the  Treaty 
of  Westphalia — the  "conservative  force  of  Europe,"  since  it  was 
strong  for  defense  but  powerless  for  attack.  Now,  since  the 
Treaty  of  Westphalia  was  the  basis  of  the  European  system — the 
abbe  argues — German  public  law  was  in  a  sense  that  of  all 
Europe.  His  project  was  then,  in  effect,  to  remodel  Europe 
somewhat  on  the  lines  of  the  empire  as  it  was  after  1648.  Its 
provisions  are  as  follows : 

i.  The  sovereigns  are  to  contract  a  perpetual  and  irrevocable  alliance, 
and  to  name  plenipotentiaries  to  hold,  in  a  determined  spot,  a  permanent 
diet  or  congress,  in  which  all  differences  between  the  contracting  parties 
are  to  be  settled  by  arbitration  or  judicial  decision. 

z.  The  number  of  the  sovereigns  sending  plenipotentiaries  to  the  con- 
gress is  to  be  specified,  together  with  those  who  are  to  be  invited  to 
accede  to  the  treaty.  The  presidency  of  the  congress  is  to  be  exercised  by 
the  sovereigns  in  turn  at  stated  intervals,  the  order  of  rotation  and  term 
of  office  being  carefully  defined.  In  like  manner  the  quota  to  be  con- 
tributed by  each  to  the  common  fund,  and  its  method  of  collection,  are 
to  be  carefully  defined. 

3.  The    confederation    thus    formed    is    to    guarantee    to    each    of    its 
members  the  sovereignty  of  the  territories  it  actually  possesses,  as  well  as 
the  succession,  whether  hereditary  or  elective,  according  to  the  fundamental 
laws  of  each  country.      To  avoid  disputes,  actual  possession  and  the  latest 
treaties    are    to   be    taken    as    the    basis    of    the    mutual    rights    of   the    con- 
tracting powers,    while  all   future   disputes  are   to   be  settled  by   arbitration 
of  the   diet. 

4.  The  congress  is  to  define  the  cases  which  would  involve  offending 
states  being  put  under  the  ban  of   Europe. 

5.  The   powers   are   to   agree   to   arm   and  take   the   offensive,   in   com- 
mon and  at  the  common   expense,   against   any  state  thus  banned,   until   it 
shall  have  submitted  to  the  common  will. 

6.  The   plenipotentiaries   in   congress,    on   instructions   from   their   sov- 
ereigns,   shall    have    power    to    make    such    rules    as    they    shall    judge    im- 
portant with  a  view  to  securing  for  the  European  Republic  and  each  of  its 
members  all  possible  advantages. 

It  is  impossible  to  examine  this  project  without  being  struck 
by  the  fact  that  there  is  scarcely  one  of  its  provisions  which  does 
not  emerge,  at  least  as  a  subject  of  debate  among  the  powers, 
during  the  years  of  European  reconstruction  after  1814.  This 
fact  is,  perhaps,  not  the  least  striking  on  what  may  be  called  its 
negative  side.  In  the  Abbe  de  St.  Pierre's  project  there  is  no 
provision  made  for  even  an  honorary  preeminence  of  the  em- 
peror; there  is  also  no  provision  made  for  any  representation 
other  than  that  of  the  sovereigns.  From  this  vision  of  perpetual 
peace  the  venerable  phantom  of  the  Holy  Empire  has  vanished 
all  but  completely;  this  churchman  and  apostle  of  international 
union  has  as  little  use  as  the  powers  of  the  Grand  Alliance  for 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  19 

"the  center  of  political  unity,"  against  the  abolition  of  which  at 
the  Congress  of  Vienna  Cardinal  Consalvi  was  to  protest  in  the 
name  of  the  Roman  Church.  He  knows  nothing  too  of  na- 
tionality as  the  term  came  to  be  understood  in  the  nineteenth 
century;  for  him,  as  later  for  Metternich,  a  "nation"  is  but  the 
aggregate  of  people  bound  together  by  allegiance  to  a  common 
sovereign— a  conception  which,  I  may  add,  would  greatly  facili- 
tate the  establishment  of  an  international  system,  did  it  but 
answer  to  the  facts.  Of  popular  rights,  as  developed  by  the 
Revolution,  he  of  course  knew  nothing. 

Apart  from  the  generally  contemptuous  reception  which  the 
abbe's  project  met  with  in  that  age  of  Machiavellian  statecraft, 
the  omissions  above  noted  met  with  particular  criticism  during  the 
eighteenth  century.  Leibnitz,  to  whom  the  abbe  submitted  his 
scheme,  held  that  in  its  general  idea  it  was  both  feasible  and 
desirable.  He  had,  he  said,  seen  similar  proposals  made  in  the 
"Nouveau  Cynee"  and  in  a  book  by  the  Landgrave  Ernest  of 
Hesse-Rheinfels  entitled  "Le  Catholique  Discret,"  and  Henry 
IV.,  though  his  scheme  was  aimed  at  Austria,  had  clearly  be- 
lieved it  to  be  practicable.  For  Liebnitz,  however,  the  subordina- 
tion of  the  empire  was  a  serious  blot.  It  had  been  a  maxim 
of  international  law  for  centuries  that  the  emperor  was  the  tem- 
poral head  of  Christendom,  and  jurisconsults  had  reasoned  on 
this  basis.  The  empire  had  become  weak,  partly  owing  to  the 
Reformation,  partly  owing  to  the  alienation  of  its  revenues  and 
its  consequent  incapacity  to  enforce  the  decisions  of  the  courts. 
But  the  dignity  and  precedence  of  the  emperor  survived,  and  he 
still  possessed  some  rights  of  direction  in  Christendom.  "I  do 
not  think  it  would  be  just,"  he  says,  "to  destroy  all  at  once  the 
authority  of  the  Roman  Empire,  which  has  lasted  so  many  cen- 
turies. .  .  .  Jurisconsults  know  that  one  does  not  lose  one's 
rights,  nor  even  their  possession,  because  there  has  been  no 
occasion  to  exercise  them;  and  that  it  is  not  necessary  even  to 
insist  on  them,  save  where  those  who  owe  these  rights  declare 
that  they  wish  to  repudiate  their  obligation." 

He  goes  on  to  point  out  certain  respects  in  which  the  system 
of  the  empire  is  superior  to  that  suggested  by  St.  Pierre.  The 
Tribunal  of  the  Imperial  Chamber  (Reichskammergericht},  for 
instance,  consists  of  judges  and  assessors  who  are  free  to  follow 
their  consciences,  not  being  bound  by  the  instructions  of  the 


20  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

princes  and  states  that  nominated  them.  Moreover,  in  the 
abbe's  project  there  is  no  provision  for  the  hearing  of  the  com- 
plaints of  subjects  against  their  sovereigns,  while  in  the  empire 
subjects  can  plead  against  their  princes  or  their  magistrates. 

The  comment  of  Leibnitz  is  interesting  because  it  anticipates 
the  objection  which,  a  hundred  years  later,  Castlereagh  consid- 
ered fatal  to  the  system  of  guarantees,  precisely  similar  to  that 
suggested  in  the  third  article  of  St.  Pierre's  project,  which  the 
reactionary  powers  sought  to  formulate  at  Aix-la-Chapelle  and 
did  formulate  in  the  Troppau  Protocol.  The  Abbe  de  St.  Pierre 
pointed  out  how  the  proposals  in  this  article  would  not  weaken 
but  strengthen  the  princes,  by  guaranteeing  to  each  of  them  "not 
only  their  states  against  all  foreign  invasion,  but  also  their  au- 
thority against  all  rebellions  of  their  subjects."  In  a  memoran- 
dum on  the  treaties  presented  to  the  powers  at  Aix-la-Chapelle 
Castlereagh  wrote: 

The  idea  of  an  Alliance  Solidaire  by  which  each  state  shall  be  bound 
to  support  the  state  of  succession,  government,  and  possession  within  all 
other  states  from  violence  and  attack,  upon  condition  of  receiving  for  itself 
a  similar  guarantee,  must  be  understood  as  morally  implying  the  previous 
establishment  of  such  a  system  of  general  government  as  may  secure  and 
enforce  upon  all  kings  and  nations  an  internal  system  of  peace  and  justice. 
Till  the  mode  of  constructing  such  a  system  shall  be  devised,  the  con- 
sequence is  inadmissible,  as  nothing  could  be  more  immoral,  or  more 
prejudicial  to  the  character  of  government  generally,  than  the  idea  that 
their  force  was  collectively  to  be  prostituted  to  the  support  of  established 
power,  without  any  consideration  of  the  extent  to  which  it  was  abused. 

In  writing  this,  Castlereagh  was  unconsciously,  repeating  and 
expanding  a  comment  on  the  abbe's  third  article  made  long  before 
by  Rousseau,  who  in  his  "Jugement  sur  la  Paix  Perpetuelle"  had 
written : 

One  cannot  guarantee  princes  against  the  revolt  of  their  subjects  with- 
out at  the  same  time  guaranteeing  subjects  against  the  tyranny  of  princes. 
Otherwise  the  institution  could  not  possibly  survive. 

With  Rousseau  we  come  to  the  eve  of  the  revolutionary  age ; 
universal  peace  is  to  be  the  outcome,  not  of  a  fraternal  union 
of  princes,  but  of  the  brotherhood  of  an  enlightened  humanity. 
"The  projet  de  paix  perpetuelle,"  Voltaire  wrote,  "is  absurd,  not 
in  itself,  but  in  the  manner  of  its  proposal."  "The  peace 
imagined  by  the  Abbe  de  St.  Pierre  is  a  chimera,  which  will  not 
subsist  between  princes  any  more  than  between  elephants  and 
rhinoceroses,  between  wolves  and  dogs.  Carnivorous  animals 
will  always  tear  each  other  to  pieces  at  the  first  opportunity." 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  21 

Wars  of  ambition  will  cease  when  the  mass  of  people  realize 
that  it  is  only  a  few  generals  and  ministers  who  have  anything 
to  gain  by  them ;  wars  of  commerce  will  cease  with  the  universal 
establishment  of  free  trade;  wars  of  religion  with  the  spread  of 
the  spirit  of  tolerance.  As  for  questions  of  succession,  these 
are  for  the  people  to  decide.  "The  establishment  of  a  European 
Diet,"  he  continues,  "might  be  very  useful  for  deciding  con- 
troversies about  the  extradition  of  criminals  or  the  laws  of  com- 
merce, or  for  settling  the  principles  on  which  cases  in  which  the 
laws  of  different  nations  are  invoked  should  be  decided.  The 
sovereigns  should  concert  a  code  according  to  which  such  dis- 
putes would  be  settled,  and  should  engage  to  submit  to  its  de- 
cisions or  to  the  final  arbitrament  of  their  sword — the  necessary 
condition  for  the  establishment,  durability,  and  usefulness  of 
such  a  tribunal.  It  is  possible  to  persuade  a  prince,  who  com- 
mands two  hundred  thousand  men,  that  it  is  not  to  his  interest 
to  defend  his  rights  or  his  pretensions  by  force ;  but  it  is  absurd 
to  propose  to  him  to  renounce  them."  Elsewhere  Voltaire  asks : 
"What  is  necessary  in  order  to  govern  men,  one's  brothers  (and 
what  brothers!),  by  right?"  And  he  answers:  "The  free  con- 
sent of  the  peoples." 

The  outbreak  of  the  French  revolution,  then — as  the  triumph 
of  popular  forces  over  those  of  the  divine  right  of  kings — was 
hailed  by  many  as  heralding  the  dawn  of  an  era  of  universal 
peace.  A  single  quotation  may  serve  to  illustrate  a  widespread 
hope  which  was  destined  to  be  so  utterly  belied.  At  a  meeting  of 
the  Revolution  Society  to  celebrate  the  first  anniversary  of 
the  capture  of  the  Bastille,  Dr.  Price — the  first  object  of  Burke's 
attack  in  the  "Reflections" — thus  apostrophized  the  leaders  of  the 
French  Revolution :  "O  heavenly  philanthropists,  well  do  you 
deserve  the  admiration,  not  only  of  your  own  country,  but  of  all 
countries!  You  have  already  determined  to  renounce  forever 
all  views  of  conquest  and  all  offensive  wars.  This  is  an  in- 
stance of  wisdom  and  attention  to  human  rights  which  has  no 
example.  But  you  will  do  more;  you  will  invite  Great  Britain 
to  join  you  in  this  determination  and  to  enter  into  a  compact 
with  you  for  promoting  peace  on  earth,  good  will  among  men.  .  .  . 
Thus  united  the  two  kingdoms  will  be  omnipotent.  They  will 
soon  draw  into  their  confederation  Holland  and  other  countries 


22  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

on  this  side  of  the  globe,  the  United  States  of  America  on  the 
other,"  and  so  on. 

Five  years  later,  in  1795,  Immanuel  Kant  published  his 
treatise  "On-  Perpetual  Peace"  (Zum  ewigen  Friederi),  an  essay 
on  the  construction  of  an  international  system  on  a  philosophical 
basis.  This  basis  he  finds  in  the  development  of  enlightened 
self-interest  among  the  peoples  and  the  growth  of  the  moral  idea, 
which  has  already  made  men  open  to  the  influence  of  the  mere 
conception  of  law,  as  though  this  in  itself  possessed  physical 
power.  Perpetual  peace  will  thus,  he  argues,  ultimately  be 
guaranteed  by  nature  itself,  through  the  mechanism  inherent  in 
human  inclinations.  "Seek  first,"  he  says,  "the  kingdom  of  pure 
practical  reason  and  its  justice,  and  your  goal  (the  benefit  of 
perpetual  peace)  will  be  added  unto  you  of  itself." 

But  this  moral  idea  and  this  pure  practical  reason  can,  in 
Kant's  opinion,  only  be  developed  fully  under  republican  institu- 
tions, because  the  people  will  never  vote  for  war !  His  prac- 
tical suggestions  for  an  international  organization,  therefore,  in- 
clude these  articles: 

1.  The  civil  constitution  in  every  state  is  to  be  republican.      But  this 
republicanism  is   not  to   be   democracy,   which   is  opposed  to   liberty.      The 
true  republican  government  is  representative. 

2.  The   law   of   nations   is   to   be  established   on   a   federation    of   free 
states.      Such  a  great  federal  republic,  if  once  established,  would  gradually 
attract  other  states  and  so  ultimately  include  all. 

It  is  perhaps  not  wholly  without  significance  that  a  French 
translation  of  Kant's  treatise  was  published  at  Paris  in  1814  dur- 
ing the  first  occupation  by  the  Allies.  It  is  also  interesting  to 
note  that  in  this  same  year  was  published  the  "Reorganisation 
de  la  Societe  Europeene"  of  the  Comte  de  Saint-Simon,  who  later 
on  was  to  proclaim  his  appreciation  of  the  benefit  conferred 
upon  Europe  by  the  Holy  Alliance.  The  language  in  which  he 
does  so  is,  I  think,  worth  quoting  here.  In  the  third  of  his 
"Opinions  philosophiques  a  1'usage  du  XlXme  siecle,"  he  writes : 

The  interests  and  the  most  widespread  opinion  of  Europe  called  upon 
the  kings  to  unite,  in  order  to  exercise  the  supreme  direction  over  the 
social  interests  of  Europe.  In  order  that  the  transition  from  the  feudal 
regime  to  the  industrial  system  might  take  place  in  a  peaceful  manner,  it 
was  necessary  that  a  supreme  power  should  be  established.  The  Holy 
Alliance  fulfills  this  condition  to  perfection;  it  dominates  all  spiritual  and 
temporal  powers.  .  .  .  Finally,  thanks  to  the  formation  of  the  Holy 
Alliance,  European  society  is  in  a  position  to  reorganize  itself  very  securely, 
from  the  moment  that  a  clear  public  opinion  shall  have  been  formed  as  to 
the  institutions  which  correspond  to  the  present  state  of  its  civilization. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  23 


THE  HOLY  ALLIANCE1 

Before  "the  sun  of  Austerlitz"  had  risen,  the  Tsar  Alex- 
ander had  approached  Great  Britain  with  proposals  which, 
after  Waterloo,  ripened  into  the  Holy  Alliance.  That  strange 
concert  of  the  Great  Powers  at  the  outset  was  quite  free 
from  reactionary  tendencies.  Directed  primarily  against 
France,  as  the  powder-magazine  of  Europe,  it  was  avowedly 
a  league  of  sovereigns  pledged  to  govern  in  accordance  with 
the  principles  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ — the  kings  were  to  re- 
gard each  other  as  brothers,  and  their  peoples  as  their  chil- 
dren. In  a  letter  to  Count  Lieven,  his  ambassador  in  Lon- 
don, the  Tsar  declared  that  "the  sole  and  exclusive  object  of 
the  alliance  can  only  be  the  maintenance  of  peace  and  the 
union  of  all  the  moral  interests  of  the  peoples  which  Divine 
Providence  has  been  pleased  to  unite  under  the  banner  of  the 
Cross."  And  the  Alliance  proposed  to  secure  the  peace  of 
the  world  by  jointly  guaranteeing  to  each  Power  the  terri- 
tories assigned  to  it  by  the  Congress  of  Vienna.  In  other 
words,  the  object  of  the  Alliance  was  to  perpetiate  peace  on 
the  basis  of  the  status  quo. 

With  all  their  thoughts  colored  by  recollections  of  the 
French  Revolution,  it  is  not  surprising  that  some  of  the 
assembled  sovereigns  thought  that  the  danger  to  France  was 
quite  as  likely  to  come  from  internal  commotions  as  from 
national  greed,  or  dynastic  quarrels.  Then  came  the  idea  of 
what  we  should  now  call  "a  preventive  war."  To  the  league 
of  the  kings  it  seemed  clearly  their  duty  to  nip  any  revolu- 
tionary movement  in  the  bud  as  quickly  as  possible.  As  early 
as  1818  we  find  Castlereagh  warning  the  British  Cabinet  as 
to  this  danger  to  the  liberties  of  nations.  He  reports  that  the 
Tsar  and  his  Minister,  Capo  d'Istria,  "were,  in  conversation, 
disposed  to  push  their  ideas  very  far  indeed,  in  the  sense  of 
all  the  Powers  of  Europe  being  bound  together  in  a  com- 
mon league,  guaranteeing  to  each  other  the  existing  order  of 
things,  in  thrones  as  well  as  in  territories,  all  being  bound 
to  march,  if  requisite,  against  the  first  Power  that  offended, 

1  From  "A  Future  Machinery  of  Peace,"  by  J.  G.  Snead-Cox.  Living 
Age.  292:771-9.  March  31,  1917. 


24  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

either  by  her  ambition  or  her  revolutionary  transgression." 
Two  years  later  when  Great  Britain  was  getting  restive  and, 
indeed,  thoroughly  alarmed  at  the  Absolutist  tendencies  of 
the  Alliance,  Russia,  Austria  and  Prussia  signed  the  famous 
Protocol  of  Troppau,  which  laid  down  the  principle  of  inter- 
vention in  the  case  of  revolutionary  movements,  in  these 
words: 

States  which  have  undergone  a  change  of  government  due  to  revolu- 
tion, the  results  of  which  threaten  other  States,  ipso  facto,  cease  to  be 
members  of  the  European  Alliance,  and  remain  excluded  from  it  until 
their  situation  gives  guarantees  for  legal  order  and  stability.  If,  owing 
to  such  alterations,  immediate  danger  threatens  other  States,  the  Powers 
bind  themselves,  by  peaceful  means,  or  if  need  be  by  arms,  to  bring  back 
the  guilty  State  into  the  bosom  of  the  Great  Alliance. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  trace  in  detail  how  the  rift  within  the 
lute  gradually  widened.  For  England,  the  breaking  point 
was  reached  when,  in  1822,  France,  under  the  guidance  of 
Chateaubriand  and  as  the  instrument  of  the  Alliance,  invaded 
Spain  to  crush  the  Liberal  movement,  and  restore  the  power 
of  the  Bourbons.  Canning  ended  the  negotiations  with  the 
words:  "England  is  under  no  obligation  to  interfere,  or  to 
assist  in  interfering,  in  the  internal  concerns  of  independent 
nations."  He  went  on  to  say  that,  as  he  understood  them, 
England's  engagements  "had  reference  wholly  to  the  state  of 
territorial  possession  settled  at  the  peace."  The  Alliance 
might  have  survived  the  defection  of  Great  Britain,  and  it 
seemed  strengthened  by  the  easy  success  of  the  campaign  in 
behalf  of  Ferdinand  VII.,  but  it  was  terribly  shaken  by  the 
revolutions  of  1830  and  1848,  which  twice  emptied  the  throne 
of  France.  The  marching  of  the  Russian  armies  into  Hun- 
gary in  1849,  in  the  interests  of  the  House  of  Hapsburg,  may 
be  regarded  as  the  last  fruits  of  the  Alliance.  Its  final  col- 
lapse was  due  to  what  the  Tsar  Nicholas  regarded  as  his 
betrayal  by  Austria  at  the  time  of  the  Crimean  War. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  25 


WILLIAM  PENN'S  PLAN  FOR  WORLD  PEACE1 

The  problem  of  world  organization  has  for  centuries  at- 
tracted the  attention  of  many  of  the  world's  greatest  con- 
structive thinkers.  In  1693  William  Penn  found  time  in  the 
midst  of  his  great  struggle  for  religious  liberty  and  in  the 
midst  of  a  world  war  to  write  his  Essay  toward  the  Present 
and  Future  Peace  of  Europe.  The  literature  on  peace  and 
world  organization  was  then  very  meager,  and  there  appears 
to  be  no  evidence  that  Penn  was  acquainted  with  such  as 
there  was,  beyond  the  Great  Design  of  Henry  IV.  and -his 
Minister  Sully,  which  was  after  all  so  largely  devoted  to  re- 
drawing the  map  of  Europe  as  to  afford  comparatively  little 
guidance  beyond  suggesting  the  idea  of  world  organization. 
And  yet  Penn's  essay,  it  is  believed  contains  every  sub- 
stantive idea  which  has  ever  found  expression  as  regards  in- 
ternational organization,  arbitration  and  peace. 

Since  then,  the  world  has  merely  been  endeavoring  to 
catch  up  with  Penn,  to  fill  in  the  details  of  the  outline  sketch 
which  he  drew,  to  furnish  the  evidence  needed  in  support  of  the 
general  propositions  which  he  advanced,  and  to  translate  his 
dream  into  reality.  In  this  work  a  host  of  wise  and  open- 
minded  men  of  every  nation  have  contributed,  among  whom 
might  be  mentioned  Saint  Pierre  in  France,  Kant  in  Ger- 
many, Bentham  in  England  and  Ladd  in  the  United  States, 
coming  down  through  more  than  200  years  to  President  Wil- 
son's memorable  address  to  the  Senate  of  January  22d  last,  in 
which  he  bravely  took  his  reputation  as  a  practical  statesman 
into  his  hands  and,  speaking  both  as  an  individual  and  also 
"as  the  responsible  head  of  a  great  government,"  dared  to 
make  the  adoption  of  the  dream  of  the  great  philosophers 
and  philanthropists  of  the  past  a  question  of  the  practical 
politics  of  to-day. 

Penn  was  a  Quaker.  It  would  be  scarcely  denied  that  he 
was  a  good  Quaker.  He  not  only  believed  in  the  inherent 
wickedness  of  war  but  in  its  futility.  He  understood  with 

1  From  "International  Organization :  Executive  and  Administrative," 
by  William  C.  Dennis,  member  of  the  District  of  Columbia  Bar.  In  the 
Proceedings  of  the  American  Society  of  International  Law.  1917:91-100. 


26  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

John  Bright,  that  other  great  English  Quaker  statesman,  that 
"force  is  never  a  remedy"  and  that  men  can  no  more  be 
made  righteous  by  treaties  enforced  by  armies  than  they  can 
by  laws  enforced  by  the  policemen.  He  understood  that  true 
peace,  the  peace  of  the  soul,  comes  from  within  because  a 
spirit  has  entered  the  soul  of  man  "which  taketh  away  the 
occasion  for  war."  At  the  same  time  he  was  the  founder  of 
Pennsylvania  and  he  knew,  as  he  quaintly  says,  referring  of 
course  to  ordinary  civil  peace,  not  the  peace  of  the  spirit,  that 
"peace  is  maintained  by  justice  which  is  the  fruit  of  govern- 
ment as  government  is  from  society  and  society  from  con- 
sent," and  he  believed  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  before  Dar- 
win that  the  life  history  of  the  individual  is  the  miniature  of 
the  life  history  of  the  race,  or,  as  he  puts  it,  "that  by  the 
same  rules  of  justice  and  prudence  by  which  parents  and 
masters  govern  their  families,  and  magistrates  their  cities, 
and  estates  their  republics  and  princes  and  kings  their  prin- 
cipalities and  kingdoms,  Europe  may  obtain  and  preserve 
peace  among  her  sovereignties." 

So  believing  and  knowing  that  civil  peace  among  in- 
dividuals is  maintained  by  force,  actual  or  potential,  he  had 
no  hesitation  in  proposing  to  maintain  peace  among  nations 
in  the  same  manner.  Further  than  that  he  had  no  hesitation 
about  compelling  a  recalcitrant  nation  by  force  to  become  a 
member  of  the -league  which  he  proposed  and  which  he 
styled  "the  sovereign  or  imperial  diet,  parliament  or  state  of 
Europe"  and  to  submit  to  a  proper  reduction  of  armaments. 
Answering  the  objection  which  might  be  raised  "that  the 
strongest  and  richest  sovereignty  will  never  agree  to  it,"  he 
replies,  "I  answer  to  the  first  part  he  is  not  stronger  than  all 
the  rest  and  for  that  reason  you  should  promote  this  and 
compel  him  into  it,  especially  before  he  be  so,  for  then  it  will 
be  too  late  to  deal  with  such  a  one." 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  27 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  * 

At  the  present  moment  the  whole  world  is  interested  in 
the  establishment  of  a  League  of  Nations.  Although  there  is 
nothing  novel  in  this  perennial  topic  of  discussion,  illustrious 
support  for  the  project  has  now  been  obtained.  A  further 
interest  attaches  to  the  present  propaganda,  since  it  is  generally 
acknowledged  that  the  approaching  conclusion  of  the  great 
war  in  Europe  will  be  an  opportune  moment  for  improving 
the  constitution  of  our  international  relations.  The  magni- 
tude of  the  present  conflict  and  the  advance  in  civilization 
will  make  it  possible  to  effect  reforms  much  more  radical  and 
far-reaching  than  at  any  previous  period.  In  the  midst  of 
the  tragic  events  of  the  war  many  philosophers  and  philan- 
thropists are  looking  forward  to  the  realization  of  this 
League  of  Nations,  as  in  the  nature  of  an  atonement  for  the 
degradation  of  carnage  into  which  we  have  been  plunged.  It  is 
interesting  to  compare  their  hopes  and  prophecies  with  an 
important  proposal  made  by  a  philosopher  of  Massachusetts 
in  the  year  1840." 

William  Ladd's  own  words  were:  "It  is  proposed  to 
organize  a  Court  of  Nations,  composed  of  as  many  members 
as  the  Congress  of  Nations  shall  previously  agree  upon,  say, 
two  from  each  of  the  Powers  represented  at  the  Congress" 
(p.  34).  The  members  of  this  court  were  to  enjoy  the  same 
privileges  and  immunities  as  Ambassadors  and  to  give  their 
verdicts  by  a  majority.  In  regard  to  their  jurisdiction,  Mr. 
Ladd  proposed:  "All  cases  submitted  to  the  court  should  be 
judged  by  the  true  interpretation  of  existing  treaties,  and  by 
the  laws  enacted  by  the  Congress  and  ratified  by  the  nations 
represented;  and  where  these  treaties  and  laws  fail  of  estab- 
lishing the  point  at  issue,  they  should  judge  the  cause  by  the 
principles  of  equity  and  justice"  (p.  35). 

The  author,  in  an  illuminating  discussion  of  the  objections 
which  might  be  raised  against  such  a  court,  enumerates  them 

1  By    Ellery    C.    Stowell,    Associate    Professor    of    International    Law, 
Columbia  University.     Nation.      103:536-8.     December  7,  1916. 

2  "An  Essay  on  the  Congress  of  Nations,"  by  William  Ladd.     Reprinted 
from   the   original   edition   for   the   Carnegie   Endowment  for   International 
Feace,     1916. 


28  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

substantially  as  follows:  that  it  was  an  innovation;  that  it 
gave  too  much  power  to  a  few  men;  that  there  was  no  ma- 
chinery for  the  enforcing  of  the  decrees  of  the  court;  that  it 
would  be  dangerous  to  the  maintenance  of  existing  forms  of 
government;  that  republics,  being  in  a  minority  among  the 
nations,  would  not  have  so  good  a  chance  of  obtaining  jus- 
tice; that  there  existed  already  a  satisfactory  system  based 
upon  many  precedents  of  submitting  international  disputes  to 
arbitration.  Ladd  gives  a  convincing  refutation  to  many  of 
the  arguments  against  this  latter  system,  and  obtained  a  prac- 
tical vindication  when  the  calling  of  the  first  Hague  Con- 
ference brought  to  pass  the  great  Congress  of  Nations  which 
he  foretold.  This  Legislature  of  the  World,  as  he  described 
it,  became,  as  he  also  proposed,  the  Constituent  Assembly  of 
an  Arbitral  Tribunal.  The  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration 
at  The  Hague  differed,  however,  in  one  important  particular. 
Instead  of  Ladd's  plan  of  two  representatives  appointed  by 
each  nation,  holding  office  during  good  behavior,  and  render- 
ing their  decisions  by  a  majority  vote,  the  Permanent  Court, 
as  at  present  organized,  consists  of  a  list  of  arbitrators — not 
more  than  four  representatives  from  each  country — who  are 
appointed  for  terms  of  six  years,  which  may  be  renewed. 
They  serve  without  compensation  except  as  they  may  be 
especially  designated  to  act  as  arbitrators  in  some  case  which 
is  submitted  to  the  court. 

The  Hague  Court  is  evidently  a  compromise  between  the 
plan  proposed  by  Ladd  and  the  older  system  of  unlimited 
choice  for  the  selection  of  the  arbitrators.  Nevertheless,  it 
seems  to  be  a  happy  mean,  such  as  Ladd  himself  commends 
as  a  cautious  step  along  the  road  of  progress. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  29 

THE  HAGUE  AND  PEACE  CONFERENCES  * 
The  First  Hague  Conference 

On  May  18,  1899,  one  hundred  delegates  of  the  twenty-six 
nations  that  had  representatives  at  St.  Petersburg  met  in  the 
Queen's  House  in  the  Wood  at  The  Hague  to  consider  the 
Czar's  rescript  issued  in  August,  1898.  The  mightiest  mon- 
arch in  Christendom,  appalled  that  the  increased  cost  of 
armaments  was  bringing  about  the  very  results  armies  were 
formed  to  avert,  had  urged  the  nations  to  discuss  the  ques- 
tion of  limitation  and  reduction  of  armaments.  For  nearly 
three  months  the  Conference  in  three  committees  worked 
steadily  on  its  problems.  The  service  rendered  by  the  Eng- 
lish, French,  and  other  commissioners  was  very  great.  Vast 
numbers  of  letters  and  telegrams  were  sent  from  America  to 
Andrew  D.  White  and  the  other  American  delegates  at  The 
Hague,  and  at  a  critical  moment  this  strong  expression  of 
American  opinion  had  great  weight.  Though  disarmament 
was  not  definitely  arranged  for,  a  Permanent  International 
Tribunal,  as  the  necessary  first  step  towards  it,  was  agreed 
upon  by  the  delegates.  They  also  arranged  for  commissions 
of  inquiry  and  methods  of  mediation  and  conciliation  between 
the  signatory  powers. 

Their  achievement  was  the  greatest  of  the  kind  in  human 
history.  The  delegates,  who  had  assembled  with  misgivings, 
like  those  at  our  Constitutional  Convention  in  1787,  parted  in 
confidence  and  hope. 

The  Hague  Court  was  opened  in  April,  1901.  A  fine  man- 
sion was  purchased  for  it — to  be  used  until  the  Peace  Palace 
provided  by  Mr.  Carnegie  is  opened — and  a  permanent  sec- 
retary installed.  It  has  now  a  board  of  one  hundred  and 
thirty  judges  from  the  countries  that  ratified  the  Conven- 
tions. These  judges  remain  at  home  until  selected  to  try  a 
case.  Recourse  to  the  Hague  Court  is  optional  until  nations 
pledge  themselves  by  arbitration  treaties  to  use  it.  Several 

1  From  "A  Primer  of  the  Peace  Movement,"  by  Lucia  Ames  Mead, 
National  Secretary  of  the  Woman's  Peace  Party.  8th  Ed.  Rev.  American 
Peace  Society. 


30  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

jurists  have  repeatedly  been  asked  to  serve  at  The  Hague, 
and  thus  have  in  a  peculiar  sense  become  international 
judges. 

The  Hague  provision  for  Commissions  of  Inquiry  pre- 
vented strife  between  England  and  Russia  when  the  Russian 
admiral  in  the  North  Sea  fired  on  an  English  fishing  fleet  as 
he  was  on  his  way  to  meet  Admiral  Togo.  An  international 
commission  of  admirals  which  met  in  Paris  allayed  English 
fury,  and  Russia  paid  the  widows  and  orphans  more  than 
$300,000  for  her  blunder.  The  Hague  provision  for  mediation 
was  used  by  President  Roosevelt  when  he  invited  Russia  and 
Japan  to  send  commissioners  to  settle  their  war  at  Ports- 
mouth, N.  H. — one  of  the  most  romantic  achievements  of 
modern  history. 

The  Second  Hague  Conference 

In  June,  1907,  the  Second  Hague  Conference,  the  call  for 
which  had  been  delayed  by  the  Russo-Japanese  war  and  the 
Pan-American  Conference,  convened  with  256  delegates  from 
forty-four  nations,  representing  practically  the  power  and 
wealth  of  the  world.  Hon.  Joseph  H.  Choate  headed  the 
American  delegation  and  presented  a  plea  for  a  Court  of 
Arbitral  Justice  at  The  Hague,  to  supplement  (and  not 
abolish)  the  present  Arbitration  Tribunal.  This  was  agreed  upon. 
.  .  .  The  Porter-Drago  doctrine  arranged  for  the  peaceful  settle- 
ment of  difficulties  arising  from  non-payment  of  contractual  debts. 
Germany,  which  had  been  an  obstacle  to  progress  in  1899,  led  to 
the  establishment  of  a  Prize  Court,  to  adjust  ownership  of 
captures  in  war.  This  marks  the  first  real  concession  of  the 
absolute  right  of  sovereignty,  and  is  a  very  important  prece- 
dent. The  Conference  was  practically  unanimous  in  endors- 
ing the  principle  of  obligatory  arbitration.  Among  pro- 
visions agreed  to  for  lessening  the  injustice  of  war  was  that 
forbidding  bombardment  of  unfortified  places. 

Peace  Congresses 

The  first  International  Peace  Congress  was  planned  in 
Boston  and  held  in  London  in  1843.  Of  its  three  hundred 
delegates,  thirty  were  from  the  United  States.  The  second 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  31 

received  its  impulse  from  Elihu  Burritt,  and  was  held  in  Brus- 
sels in  1848.  The  third,  in  Paris,  in  1849,  had  an  attendance 
of  two  thousand,  and  was  presided  over  by  Victor  Hugo. 
The  fourth  was  in  Frankfort  in  1850,  and  the  fifth  in  London 
in  1851.  Burritt  was  an  active  promoter  of  all  of  these  last. 

The  Peace  Congresses  were  revived  in  1889,  and  have  been 
held  in  London,  Rome,  Berne,  Chicago,  Antwerp,  Buda- 
Pesth,  Hamburg,  Paris,  Glasgow,  Monaco,  Rouen,  Boston, 
Lucerne,  Milan,  Munich,  London,  Stockholm,  and  Geneva. 
Since  the  meeting  in  1903,  most  European  nations  have  signed 
arbitration  treaties  pledging  reference  to  The  Hague  Court, 
and  France  and  England,  unfriendly  to  each  other  for  cen- 
turies, have  quietly  settled  by  diplomacy  a  half-dozen  mat- 
ters any  one  of  which  in  former  days  might  have  led  to  war. 
The  mere  fact  of  a  World  Court  being  ready  to  hear  disputes 
causes  many  a  case  to  be  peaceably  settled  out  of  court. 

The  International  Peace  Congress  of  1904  met  in  Boston 
in  October,  and  was  opened  by  Secretary  Hay.  It  was  by  far 
the  largest  International  Peace  Congress  ever  held,  and  was 
followed  by  great  meetings  in  many  American  cities. 

National  Peace  Congresses  in  addition  to  the  international 
have  been  held  in  England,  Germany,  France,  and  the  United 
States.  The  first  National  American  Peace  Congress  was 
held  in  New  York  City  from  April  14-17,  1907,  to  arouse 
public  sentiment  regarding  the  points  to  be  considered  at  the 
second  Hague  Conference.  Secretary  Root  addressed  it,  and 
many  thousands  of  persons  attended  it.  The  Second  Con- 
gress was  in  Chicago  in  1909.  The  Third  National  Peace 
Congress  in  1911,  at-  Baltimore,  was  opened  by  President 
Taft.  For  the  first  time  since  Peace  Congresses  began,  the 
head  of  a  great  nation  honored  it  by  his  presence. 

Two  National  Arbitration  Conferences  have  been  held  in 
this  country,  in  Washington,  in  1896  and  1904. 

The  Annual  Mohonk  Arbitration  Conferences  since  1895, 
to  which  Mr.  Albert  K.  Smiley  annually  invited  hundreds  of 
judges,  college  presidents,  captains  of  industry,  etc.,  have  had 
great  influence. 


32  SELECTED  ARTICLES 


OUR  ARBITRATION  TREATIES1 

The  Hague  Court  began  operation  in  1901,  and  since  that 
time  has  had  on  its  docket  17  cases,  of  which  15  have  been 
decided.  Its  operation  previous  to  the  Second  Hague  Con- 
ference in  1907  demonstrated  that  while  it  was  sound  in  prin- 
ciple and  timely  in  appearance,  it  was  inadequate  because  it 
was  not  what  it  purported  to  be,  a  "permanent  court  of  arbi- 
tration." For  the  court  established  at  The  Hague  was  merely 
a  panel  of  judges  from  which  arbitrators  might  conveniently 
be  chosen  by  litigant  nations.  The  next  logical  step  in  ad- 
vance was  taken  by  the  United  States.  Secretary  of  State 
Root  saw  the  cogency  of  the  arguments  for  a  court  consist- 
ing of  permanent  judges,  and  in  his  instructions  to  the 
American  delegates  to  the  Second  Hague  Conference  he  dis- 
cussed the  problem  involved  and  gave  this  positive  direction: 

It  should  be  your  effort  to  bring  about  in  the  Second  Conference  a 
development  of  The  Hague  Tribunal  into  a  permanent  tribunal  composed 
of  judges  who  are  judicial  officers  and  nothing  else,  who  are  paid  adequate 
salaries,  who  have  no  other  occupation,  and  who  will  devote  their  entire 
time  to  the  trial  and  decision  of  international  causes  by  judicial  methods 
and  under  a  sense  of  judicial  responsibility. 

The  American  delegates  loyally  carried  out  the  desire  of 
their  Government.  Before  the  conference  was  over,  they  had 
enlisted  the  co-operation  of  Great  Britain  and  Germany  for 
their  plan,  which  was  complete,  except  for  a  method  of  suc- 
cessfully apportioning  15  judges  among  44  states.  But  the 
American  delegates  succeeded  in  having  the  principle  in- 
dorsed in  the  Final  Act  of  the  conference,  to  which  was 
appended  the  entire  project,  minus  details  respecting  the  com- 
position of  the  court.  Though  the  conventions  signed  by  the 
conference  required  ratification  by  the  powers  to  become 
binding,  the  Final  Act  did  not;  so  that  while  the  project  failed 
of  immediate  realization,  the  wish  expressed  in  the  Final  Act 
committed  44  states  of  the  civilized  world  to  the  advisability 
of  such  a  court  in  these  words: 

The  conference  calls  the  attention  of  the  signatory  powers  to  the  advis- 
ability of  adopting  the  annexed  draft  convention  for  the  creation  of  a  Court 

1  From  "A  League  of  Nations."     Vol.  I.  p.  30-8.     October,  1917. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  33 

of  Arbitral  Justice,  and  of  bringing  it  into  force  as  soon  as  an  agreement 
has  been  reached  respecting  the  selection  of  the  judges  and  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  court.  *• 

With  the  idea  of  a  league  of  peace  backed  by  regulated 
force  already  prominently  launched  by  a  former  President  of 
the  United  States,  there  was  formed  in  New  York  at  almost 
the  time  when  Mr.  Roosevelt  was  speaking  at  Kristiania  an 
organization  called  the  World  Federation  League.  This 
organization  proved  to  be  short-lived;  but  it  was  instrumental 
in  having  Congress  consider  and  pass  a  joint  resolution  pro- 
viding for  a  commission  to  study  the  preservation  of  peace 
and  the  establishment  of  a  combined  force  for  its  mainten- 
ance. This  resolution,  which  was  approved  by  President  Taft 
on  June  25,  1910,  is  of  peculiar  significance  because  it  is  be- 
lieved to  be  the  first  attempt  on  the  part  of  any  legislature 
to  initiate  an  organization  of  the  nations  of  the  world,  with 
or  without  the  element  of  force.  The  joint  resolution  as 
passed  reads: 

[No.  43.]     JOINT  RESOLUTION  TO  AUTHORIZE  THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  A  COM- 
MISSION IN  RELATION  TO  UNIVERSAL  PEACE. 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  a  commission  of  five  mem- 
bers be  appointed  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  consider  the 
expediency  of  utilizing  existing  international  agencies  for  the  purpose  of 
limiting  the  armaments  of  the  nations  of  the  world  by  international  agree- 
ment, and  of  constituting  the  combined  navies  of  the  world  an  international 
force  for  the  preservation  of  universal  peace,  and  to  consider  and  report 
upon  any  other  means  to  diminish  the  expenditures  of  government  for 
military  purposes  and  to  lessen  the  probabilities  of  war:  Provided,  That 
the  total  expense  authorized  by  this  Joint  Resolution  shall  not  exceed  the 
sum  of  ten  thousand  dollars  and  that  the  said  commission  shall  be  required 
to  make  final  report  within  two  years  from  the  date  of  the  passage  of  this 
resolution. 

Approved  June  25,   19 io2 

The  idea  was  in  advance  of  its  time,  even  though  it  cor- 
rectly expressed  the  aspirations  of  the  American  Congress 
and  the  American  people.  When  the  Government  inquired  of 
other  states  as  to  their  attitude  on  the  matter  and  the  Depart- 
ment of  State  examined  the  world  situation  with  a  view  to 
realizing  the  purpose  intended,  it  was  found  that  action  was 
not  possible.  There  is  only  one  official  statement  respecting 
the  matter  in  American  public  records,  but  that  is  clear  and 

1  Scott,  Texts  of  the  Peace  Conference  at  The  Hague   1899  and   1907, 
138-139- 

2  Statutes  at  Large,  36,  Part  I,  885. 


34  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

accurately  reflects  the  situation  at  the  time.     President  Taft 
in  his  annual  message  of  December  6,  1910,  wrote: 

I  have  not  as  yet  made  appointments  to  this  commission  because  I 
have  invited^  and  am  awaiting  the  expression  of  foreign  governments  as 
to  their  willingness  to  co-operate  with  us  in  the  appointment  of  similar 
commissions  or  representatives  who  would  meet  with  our  commissioners  and 
by  joint  action  seek  to  make  their  work  effective. 1 

Foreign  governments  evidently  discouraged  the  American 
initiative. 

Two  weeks  lacking  a  day  after  the  publication  of  this  mes- 
sage, President  Taft  proved  how  thoroughly  he  had  the  cause 
of  pacific  settlement  at  heart  by  consenting  to  address  the 
annual  meeting  of  the  American  Society  for  Judicial  Settle- 
ment of  International  Disputes  at  its  annual  banquet.  Not 
only  did  he  lend  to  the  ideal  for  which  the  society  stood  the 
prestige  of  his  position,  but  he  thrilled  his  hearers,  and  the 
world  next  day  through  the  newspapers,  by  suggesting,  re- 
sponsibly, for  the  first  time  on  behalf  of  a  great  power,  that 
the  arbitral  settlement  of  every  issue  between  states,  whether 
or  not  involving  honor  or  vital  interest,  might  be  attempted. 
In  his  address,  he  made  an  assertion  which  was  immediately 
taken  up  as  indicating  a  new  American  policy.  His  words 
were: 

If  now  we  can  negotiate  and  put  through  a  positive  agreement  with 
some  great  nation  to  abide  the  adjudication  of  an  international  arbitral 
court  in  every  issue  which  can  not  be  settled  by  negotiation,  no  matter 
what  it  involves,  whether  honor,  territory,  or  money,  we  shall  have  made 
a  long  step  forward  by  demonstrating  that  it  is  possible  for  two  nations 
at  least  to  establish  as  between  them  the  same  system  of  due  process  of 
law  that  exists  between  individuals  under  a  government. 

It  seems  to  be  the  view  of  many  that  it  is  inconsistent  for  those  of 
us  who  advocate  any  kind  of  preparation  for  war  or  any  maintenance  of 
armed  force  or  fortification  to  raise  our  voices  for  peaceful  means  of  set- 
tling international  controversies.  But  I  think  this  view  is  quite  unjust 
and  is  not  practical.  We  only  recognize  existing  conditions  and  know  that 
we  have  not  reached  a  point  where  war  is  impossible  or  out  of  the  ques- 
tion, and  do  not  believe  that  the  point  has  been  reached  in  which  all 
nations  are  so  constituted  that  they  may  not  at  times  violate  their  national 
obligations.  2 

President  Taft  showed  without  delay  that  he  was  in 
earnest.  The  administration  announced  the  intention  of  nego- 
tiating treaties  involving  the  solution  of  every  issue  by  peace- 

1  Foreign  Relations  of  the   United  States,  1910,  ix. 

2  Proceedings   of  International   Conference   under   the    auspices   of   the 
American   Society   for   the   Judicial    Settlement   of   International    Disputes, 
Washington,  D.  C,  December  15-17,  1910,  353. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  35 

ful  methods  with  two  of  the  great  powers.  American  rela- 
tions with  France  had  proceeded  without  a  ripple  of  distrust 
or  serious  difference  for  a  century,  and  there  was  a  mutual 
admiration  between  the  two  republics  that  made  France  a 
natural  party  to  such  an  agreement.  America's  relations  with 
the  other  great  English-speaking  state,  Great  Britain,  had 
varied;  but  the  year  in  which  the  President  spoke  had  seen 
the  settlement  of  the  last  continued  and  serious  difference 
between  the  two  countries,  when  the  Hague  Permanent  Court 
of  Arbitration  had  rendered  its  decision  in  the  North  Atlantic 
Fisheries  controversy.  Cordial  relations,  similarity  in  in- 
stitutions, a  common  language,  and  like  ideals  all  pointed  to 
Great  Britain  as  another  participant  in  the  projected  step  for- 
ward. Great  Britain  and  France  were  approached  and  were 
found  to  be  responsive. 

The  problem  remained  to  find  a  formula  capable  at  the 
same  time  of  realizing  what  the  President  had  in  mind,  and 
of  safeguarding  the  rights  of  the  contracting  states.  In  ad- 
dressing the  Third  National  Peace  Congress  at  its  opening 
session  in  Baltimore  on  May  3,  1911,  he  hinted  at  the  difficul- 
ties confronting  the  administration: 

Your  chairman  has  been  good  enough  to  refer  to  something  that  I 
had  said  with  reference  to  a  hope  for  general  arbitration,  and  the  expres- 
sion of  opinion  that  an  arbitration  treaty  of  the  widest  scope  between  two 
great  nations  would  be  a  very  important  step  in  securing  the  peace  of  the 
world.  I  do  not  claim  any  patent  on  that  statement,  and  I  have  no  doubt 
that  it  is  shared  by  all  who  understand  the  situation  at  all.  I  have  no 
doubt  that  an  important  step — if  such  an  arbitration  treaty  can  be  con- 
cluded— will  have  been  taken,  but  it  will  not  bring  an  end  of  war  at 
once.  It  is  a  step,  and  we  must  not  defeat  our  purposes  by  enlarging 
the  expectation  of  the  world  as  to  what  is  to  happen  and  then  disappoint- 
ing them.  In  other  words,  we  must  look  forward  with  reasonable  judg- 
ment, and  look  to  such  an  arbitration  treaty  as  one  step,  to  be  followed  by 
other  steps  as  rapidly  as  possible;  but  we  must  realize  that  we  are 
dealing  with  a  world  that  is  fallible  and  full  of  weakness — with  some 
wickedness  in  it — and  that  reforms  that  are  worth  having  are  brought 
about  little  by  little  and  not  by  one  blow.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  by  this 
I  am  not  greatly  interested  in  bringing  about  the  arbitration  treaty  or 
treaties  that  are  mentioned,  but  I  do  think  that  we  are  likely  to  make 
more  progress  if  we  look  forward  with  reasonable  foresight  and  realize  the 
difficulties  that  are  to  be  overcome,  than  if  we  think  we  have  opened  the 
gate  to  eternal  peace  with  one  key  and  within  one  year.1 

The  actual  work  of  negotiation  was  intrusted  to  Chandler 
P.  Anderson,  counselor  of  the  Department  of  State.  His 
work  was  much  facilitated  by  the  sympathy  for  the  project 

1  Proceedings  of  Third  National  Peace  Conference,  Baltimore,  May  3, 
1911,  14-15. 


36  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

evinced  by  Ambassador  James  Bryce  of  Great  Britain  and 
Jules  Jusserand  of  France.  Treaties  were  signed  on  August 
3,  1911,  embodying  an  idea  which  had  first  been  developed  by 
William  Jennings  Bryan  at  the  London  Conference  of  the 
Interparliamentary  Union  on  July  24,  1906.  The  formula 
adopted  distinguished  for  the  first  time  in  a  formal  manner 
between  justiciable  disputes,  to  be  settled  by  legal  methods, 
and  nonjusticiable  disputes,  to  be  resolved  by  a  process  of 
extra-legal  and  extra-diplomatic  investigation.  For  six 
months  following  publication  of  these  treaties,  they  were  one 
of  the  principal  subjects  of  public  comment.  With  tenacious 
insistence  upon  its  alleged  prerogatives,  the  Senate  failed  to 
advise  and  consent  to  the  ratification  of  these  treaties,  taking 
the  attitude  it  had  previously  assumed  in  the  case  of  the 
Anglo-American  treaty  of  1897  and  the  1904  series  of  trea- 
ties. After  some  amendments,  based  on  provincial  prejudices 
which  legal  experts  from  that  time  forward  have  pro- 
nounced to  be  invalid,  the  Senate  gave  the  requisite  consent.1. 
The  President  did  not  proceed  to  the  ratification  of  the  trea- 
ties, because  the  extraneous  amendments  destroyed  their  full 
usefulness  as  world-models.  As  negotiated  the  treaties  pro- 
vided: 

ART.  I.  All  differences  hereafter  arising  between  the  High  Contract- 
ing Parties,  which  has  not  been  possible  to  adjust  by  diplomacy,  relating 
to  international  matters  in  which  the  High  Contracting  Parties  are  con- 
cerned by  virtue  of  a  claim  of  right  made  by  one  against  the  other  under 
treaty  or  otherwise,  and  which  are  justiciable  in  their  nature  by  reason  of 
being  susceptible  of  decision  by  the  application  of  the  principles  of  law  and 

1  President  Taft  strongly  opposed  the  Senate's  attitude  at  the  time,  and 
as  an  ex-President  has  many  times  rebutted  its  arguments.  In  his  book, 
The  United  States  and  Peace,  published  in  1914,  he  wrote  (pages  112, 
115-116) : 

"As  in  the  consideration  of  the  Hay  treaties,  so  here  it  was  argued  that 
the  President  and  the  Senate  would  unlawfully  delegate  their  treaty-making 
power  if  they  agreed  that  a  tribunal  should  finally  adjudge  that  a  specific 
difference,  subsequently  arising,  was  in  the  class  of  differences  covered  by 
the  treaty.  It  is  very  difficult  to  argue  this  question  because  the  answer 
to  it  is  so  plain  and  obvious.  .  .  . 

"Nevertheless,  the  Senate  struck  out  the  provisions  for  a  decision  by 
the  Joint  High  Commission.  I  considered  this  proposition  the  most  im- 
portant feature  of  the  treaty,  and  I  did  so  because  I  felt  that  we  had  reached 
a  time  in  the  making  of  promissory  treaties  of  arbitration  when  they  should 
mean  something.  The  Senate  halted  just  at  the  point  where  a  possible  and 
real  obligation  might  be  created.  I  do  not  wish  to  minimize  the  importance 
of  general  expressions  of  good  will  and  general  declarations  of  willingness 
to  settle  everything  without  war,  but  the  long  list  of  treaties  that  mean 
but  little  can  now  hardly  be  made  longer,  for  they  include  substantially  all 
the  countries  of  the  world.  The  next  step  is  to  include  something  that 
really  binds  somebody  in  a  treaty  for  future  arbitration." 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  37 

equity,  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration  estab- 
lished at  The  Hague  by  the  Convention  of  October  18,  1907,  or  to  some 
other  arbitral  tribunal,  as  shall  be  decided  in  each  case  by  special  agree- 
ment. .  .  . 

ART.  II.  The  High  Contracting  Parties  further  agree  to  institute  as 
occasion  arises,  and  as  hereinafter  provided,  a  Joint  High  Commission  of 
Inquiry  to  which,  upon  the  request  of  either  Party,  shall  be  referred  for 
impartial  and  conscientious  investigation  any  controversy  between  the 
Parties  within  the  scope  of  Art.  I,  before  such  controversy  has  been  sub- 
mitted to  arbitration,  and  also  by  any  other  controversy  hereafter  arising 
between  them  even  if  they  are  not  agreed  that  it  falls  within  the  scope  of 
Art.  I;  provided,  however,  that  such  reference  may  be  postponed  until  the 
expiration  of  one  year  after  the  date  of  the  formal  request  therefor,  in 
Order  to  afford  an  opportunity  for  diplomatic  discussion  and  adjustment  of 
the  questions  in  controversy,  if  either  Party  desires  such  postponement.  .  .  . 

ART.  III.  ...  It  is  further  agreed,  however,  that  in  cases  in  which 
the  Parties  disagree  as  to  whether  or  not  a  difference  is  subject  to  arbitra- 
tion under  Art  I  of  this  Treaty,  that  question  shall  be  submitted  to  the 
Joint  High  Commission  of  Inquiry;  and  if  all  or  all  but  one  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Commission  agree  and  report  that  such  difference  is  within  the 
scope  of  Art.  I,  it  shall  be  referred  to  arbitration  in  accordance  with 
the  provisions  of  this  Treaty. 1 

The  incident  in  American  national  history,  however,  is  not 
to  be  counted  a  failure.  It  broadened  interest  in  the  cause 
of  world  organization,  and  it  convinced  many  in  and  out  of 
public  life  that  sound  advances  toward  a  practical  plan  for  in- 
suring peace  were  possible.  Moreover,  it  had  the  effect  of 
bringing  the  once  remote  problems  of  international  peace  into 
the  sphere  of  practical  politics. 

President  Taft,  however,  was  looking  beyond  the  treaties 
he  attempted  to  establish  as  a  world  model.  He  made  this 
clear  in  his  public  speeches.  One  of  the  notable  occasions 
on  which  he  expressed  his  views  was  the  Citizens'  Peace  Ban- 
quet at  the  Waldorf  Astoria  in  New  York  on  December  30, 
1911.  At  that  time,  he  definitely  foreshadowed  the  idea  of  a 
league  of  nations,  and  particularly  emphasized  the  fact  that 
his  own  treaties  and  even  a  full-fledged  international  arbitral 
court  were  to  be  considered  only  as  steps  toward  a  larger 
goal. 

The  idea  continued  to  be  dominant  in  the  President's 
mind  during  the  remainder  of  his  administration.  At  a 
luncheon  given  by  the  International  Peace  Forum  to  him  at 
the  Waldorf  Astoria  in  New  York  on  January  4,  1913,  he 
again  stated  his  belief  in  a  way  which  completely  fore- 
shadowed the  program  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  of 
which  he  has  been  president  since  its  organization  on  June 

1  Treaties,  Conventions,  etc.,  1776-1909,  Supplement,  1913,  380-382. 


38  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

I7»  1915.  The  following  statement  by  the  President  was 
more  than  a  declaration  of  personal  views,  it  was  an  asser- 
tion of  state  policy: 

My  own  idea  was  that  if  we  could  make  those  treaties,  they  would  form 
a  basis  for  a  treaty  with  every  other  nation  by  the  United  States,  and 
then  between  other  nations  than  the  United  States,  and  finally,  by  inter- 
locking and  intertwining  all  the  treaties,  we  might  easily  then  come  to  the 
settlement  of  all  international  questions  by  a  court  of  arbitration,  a  per- 
manent, well-established  court  of  arbitration,  whose  powers  are  to  be 
enforced  by  the  agreement  of  all  nations,  and  into  which  any  nation  may 
come  as  a  complainant  and  bring  any  other  nation  as  a  defendant,  and 
compel  that  defendant  nation  to  answer  to  the  complaint  under  the  rules 
of  law  established  for  international  purposes,  and  under  the  rules  of  law 
which  would  necessarily,  with  such  a  court,  grow  into  a  code  that  would 
embrace  all  the  higher  moral  rules  of  Christian  civilization.1 

President  Wilson  succeeded  President  Taft  on  March  4, 
1913.  The  effort  of  his  administration  to  make  progress  was 
destined  to  be  successful.  The  previous  administration  had 
failed  in  an  effort  to  combine  the  principles  of  arbitration 
and  the  commission  of  inquiry  in  a  single  system  of  pacific 
settlement.  The  new  administration  decided  to  leave  the  25 
existent  treaties  of  arbitration  then  in  force  undisturbed,  and 
to  negotiate  independent  treaties  establishing  permanent 
commissions  of  investigation  for  all  questions  not  properly 
falling  under  the  arbitration  treaties.  These  "treaties  for  the 
advancement  of  peace,"  as  they  are  officially  called,  are  at 
present  in  force  with  20  countries,  while  10  more  have  been 
signed  and  five  others  accept  the  principle.  Their  effect  has 
been  to  add  to  the  practical  machinery  of  pacific  settlement 
a  method  for  resolving  all  non-justiciable  disputes.  The 
treaties  already  in  force  contain  the  following  essential  pro- 
visions : 

ART.  I.  The  high  contracting  parties  agree  that  all  disputes 
between  them,  of  every  nature  whatsoever,  which  diplomacy  shall 
fail  to  adjust  shall  be  submitted  for  investigation  and  report  to  an 
International  Commission,  to  be  constituted  in  the  manner  pre- 
scribed in  the  next  succeeding  Article;  and  they  agree  not  to 
declare  war  or  begin  hostilities  during  such  investigation  and  re- 
port. 

ART.  II.  The  International  Commission  shall  be  composed  of 
five  members,  to  be  appointed  as  follows :  One  member  shall  be 
chosen  from  each  country,  by  the  Government  thereof ;  one  mem- 

1  The  Peace  Forum,  February,   1913,  12. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  39 

her  shall  be  chosen  by  each  Government  from  some  third  coun- 
try; the  fifth  member  shall  be  chosen  by  common  agreement  be- 
tween the  two  Governments.  .  .  . 

ART.  III.  In  case  the  high  contracting  parties  shall  have  failed 
to  adjust  a  dispute  by  diplomatic  methods,  they  shall  at  once 
refer  it  to  the  International  Commission  for  investigation  and 
report.  The  International  Commission  may,  however,  act  upon 
its  own  initiative,  and  in  such  case  it  shall  notify  both  Govern- 
ments and  request  their  co-operation  in  the  investigation. 

The  report  of  the  International  Commission  shall  be  com- 
pleted within  one  year  after  the  date  on  which  it  shall  declare  its 
investigation  to  have  begun,  unless  the  high  contracting  parties 
shall  extend  the  time  by  mutual  agreement.  .  .  . 

The  high  contracting  parties  reserve  the  right  to  act  in- 
dependently on  the  subject-matter  of  the  dispute  after  the  report 
of  the  Commission  shall  have  been  submitted. 


ORGANIZED  EFFORT  TO  PROMOTE 
A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS 

AMERICAN  CONSTRUCTIVE  PROPOSALS  FOR 
INTERNATIONAL  JUSTICE  * 

The  first  society,  organized  in  the  United  States  after  the 
adjournment  of  the  second  Hague  Conference  to  apply  itself 
to  the  discussion  and  defense  of  plans  for  a  world  court,  is 
the  American  Society  for  Judicial  Settlement  of  International 
Disputes,  founded  in  1910  by  a  company  of  lawyers,  publicists 
and  other  eminent  citizens. 

Next  came  the  American  Institute  of  International  Law, 
founded  at  Washington  in  1912,  with  the  object  of  propagating 
in  America  the  principles  of  justice  and  law  which  ought  to 
prevail  in  the  relations  between  States.  Its  membership  is 
composed  of  not  more  than  five  publicists  from  each  Ameri- 
can country,  making  in  all  a  body  of  possibly  one  hundred 
and  five  members.  At  the  second  meeting  of  this  Institute 
which  took  place  in  Havana,  January  22  and  27,  1917,  ten 
recommendations  on  international  organization  were  unani- 
mously approved.  These  recommendations  include  every 
item  of  the  program  of  the  World's  Court  League,  and  are 
all  in  entire  harmony  with  that  program. 

The  third  society  with  similar  purposes  is  the  World's 
Court  League,  organized  at  a  conference  held  in  Cleveland, 
Ohio,  May  I3th,  I4th  and  I5th,  1915.  It  was  incorporated  on 
December  28th  of  the  same  year.  The  league  was  formed  in 
the  hope  of  concentrating  popular  attention  in  the  United 
States  upon  the  necessity  of  establishing  and  maintaining  an 
international  court  of  justice.  It  began  the  publication  of  a 
magazine  called  The  World  Court,  and  devoted  itself  to  the  work 
of  educating  public  opinion. 

1  By  Charles  H.  Levermore,  Secretary  of  the  New  York  Peace  Society. 
In  World  Court.  3:72-9.  March,  1917. 


42  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

June  1 7th,  one  month  after  the  formation  of  the  World's 
Court  League,  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  was  born  at  In- 
dependence Hall  in  Philadelphia.  A  comprehensive  program 
of  world  reorganization  after  this  war  was  adopted,  including 
a  court,  council  and  congress  of  nations  belonging  to  the 
league,  and  an  agreement  to  compel  investigation  before 
fighting. 

In  the  fall  of  1916,  the  World's  Court  League  was  re- 
organized with  a  view  to  enlarging  and  perfecting  its  work. 
In  November  the  Board  of  Governors  adopted  a  revised  and 
expanded  platform  which  is  as  follows: 

We  believe  it  to  be  desirable  that  a  League  among  Nations  should  be 
organized  for  the  following  purposes: 

1.  A   World   Court,   in   general   similar  to  the   Court  of  Arbitral  Jus- 
tice  already  agreed  upon  at  the   Second  Hague  Conference,  should  be,  as 
soon   as  possible,    established   as   an   International   Court   of  Justice,    repre- 
senting the  nations  of  the  world  and,  subject  to  the  limitations  of  treaties, 
empowered   to   assume   jurisdiction    over   international   questions   in   dispute 
that  are  justiciable  in  character  and  that  are  not  settled  by  negotiation. 

2.  All    other    international    controversies    not    settled    by    negotiation 
should  be  referred  to  the   Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration  at  The  Hague, 
or  submitted  to  an  International  Council  of   Conciliation,   or  Commissions 
of  Inquiry,  for  hearing,  consideration   and  recommendation. 

3.  Soon   after  peace  is  declared,   there  should  be  held  either   "a  con- 
ference of  all  great  Governments,"  as  described  in  the  United  States  Naval 
Appropriation   Act   of    1916,   or   a  similar  assembly,    formally   designated  at 
the   Third   Hague  Conference,   and  the  sessions   of  such  international  con- 
ferences   should    become    permanently    periodic,    at    shorter    intervals    than 
formerly. 

Such  conference  or  conferences  should  (a)  formulate  and  adopt  plans 
for  the  establishment  of  a  World  Court  and  an  International  Council  of 
Conciliation,  and  (b)  from  time  to  time  formulate  and  codify  rules  of  in- 
ternational law  to  govern  in  the  decisions  of  the  World  Court  in  all  cases, 
except  those  involving  any  constitutent  State  which  has  within  the  fixed 
period  signified  its  dissent. 

4.  In  connection  with  the  establishment  of  automatically  periodic  ses- 
sions of  an  International  Conference,  the  constituent  Governments  should 
establish    a    permanent    Continuation    Committee    of    the    conference,    with 
such  administrative  powers  as  may  be  delegated  to  it  by  the  conference. 

At  the  same  time  the  magazine,  bearing  the  new  title  of 
"The  World  Court,  a  Magazine  of  International  Progress," 
was  considerably  enlarged  under  a  new  board  of  editors;  and 
the  organization  of  an  International  Council  and  a  National 
Advisory  Board  began. 

The  new  platform  of  The  World's  Court  League  is  prac- 
tically identical  with  the  platform  which  has  been  favored  by 
the  American  Peace  Society  since  the  days  of  President 
William  Ladd  in  1840.  All  the  local  State  Peace  Societies 
are  affiliated  with  the  American  Peace  Society  so  that  the 
whole  force  of  that  organization  is  committed  to  this  plat- 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  43 

form.  The  American  Peace  Society  receives  a  considerable 
portion  of  its  support  from  the  Carnegie  Endowment,  which 
is  the  largest  endowment  for  international  peace  in  the  world. 
The  World's  Court  League  has  combined  in  its  platform 
the  essential  doctrines  of  all  these  other  peace  societies  and 
organizations  for  the  improvement  of  international  relations. 
It  has  omitted  all  contentious  matter,  unless  the  initial  pro- 
posal, that  the  league  among  nations  be  formed,  be  still  re- 
garded as  open  to  question.  It  offers  what  may  be  called 
"the  irreducible  minimum"  of  all  plans  for  reorganizing  the 
world  so  as  to  ensure  peace  with  justice. 


KEEPING  THE  WORLD  SAFE:  THE  PRE- 
AMBLE AND  PROPOSALS  OF  THE 
LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 1 

Adopted  at   the   Organization   Meeting   in   Independence   Hall, 
Philadelphia,  June  17,  1915 

Throughout  five  thousand  years  of  recorded  history, 
peace,  here  and  there  established,  has  been  kept,  and  its 
area  has  been  widened,  in  one  way  only.  Individuals  have 
combined  their  efforts  to  suppress  violence  in  the  local  com- 
munity. Communities  have  cooperated  to  maintain  the  au- 
thoritative state  and  to  preserve  peace  within  its  borders. 
States  have  formed  league  or  confederations  or  have  other- 
wise cooperated  to  establish  peace  among  themselves. 
Always  peace  has  been  made  and  kept,  when  made  and  kept 
at  all,  by  the  superior  power  of  superior  numbers  acting  in 
unity  for  the  common  good. 

Mindful  of  this  teaching  of  experience,  we  believe  and 
solemnly  urge  that  the  time  has  come  to  devise  and  to 
create  a  working  union  of  sovereign  nations  to  establish 
peace  among  themselves  and  to  guarantee  it  by  all  known 
and  available  sanctions  at  their  command,  to  the  end  that 
civilization  may  be  conserved,  and  the  progress  of  mankind 
in  comfort,  enlightenment  and  happiness  may  continue. 

1  From  "A  Reference  Book  for  Speakers."  p.  31-4.  Published  by 
the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  William  H.  Taft,  President. 


44  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

We  believe  it  to  be  desirable  for  the  United  States  to  join 
a  league  of  nations  binding  the  signatories  to  the  following : 

First:  All  justiciable  questions  arising  between  the  signatory 
powers,  ~not  settled  by  negotiation,  shall,  subject  to  the 
limitations  of  treaties,  be  submitted  to  a  judicial  tribunal 
for  hearing  and  judgment,  both  upon  the  merits  and  upon 
any  issue  as  to  its  jurisdiction  of  the  question. 

Second :  All  other  questions  arising  between  the  signatories  and 
not  settled  by  negotiation,  shall  be  submitted  to  a  coun- 
cil of  conciliation  for  hearing,  consideration  and  recom- 
mendation. 

Third:  The  signatory  powers  shall  jointly  use  forthwith  both 
their  economic  and  military  forces  against  any  one  of  their 
number  that  goes  to  war,  or  commits  acts  of  hostility, 
against  another  of  the  signatories  before  any  question 
arising  shall  be  submitted  as  provided  in  the  foregoing. 

The  following  interpretation  of  Article  3  has  been  authorised  by  the 
Executive  Committee : 

"The  signatory  powers  shall  jointly  employ  diplomatic  and  economic 
pressure  against  any  one  of  their  number  that  threatens  war  against  a 
fellow  signatory  without  having  first  submitted  its  dispute  for  international 
inquiry,  conciliation,  arbitration  or  judicial  hearing,  and  awaited  a  con- 
clusion, or  without  having  offered  so  to  submit  it.  They  shall  follow  this 
forthwith  by  the  joint  use  of  their  military  forces  against  that  nation  if 
it  actually  goes  to  war,  or  commits  acts  of  hostility,  against  another  of 
the  signatories  before  any  question  arising  shall  be  dealt  with  as  provided 
in  the  foregoing." 

Fourth :  Conferences  between  the  signatory  powers  shall  be 
held  from  time  to  time  to  formulate  and  codify  rules  of 
international  law,  which,  unless  some  signatory  shall  sig- 
nify its  dissent  within  a  stated  period,  shall  thereafter 
govern  in  the  decisions  of  the  judicial  tribunal  mentioned 
in  Article  One. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  45 


VICTORY  PROGRAM1 

The  war  now  happily  brought  to  a  close  has  been  above  all  a 
war  to  end  war,  but  in  order  to  ensure  the  fruits  of  victory  and  to 
prevent  the  recurrence  of  such  a  catastrophe  there  should  be 
formed  a  League  of  Free  Nations,  as  universal  as  possible,  based 
upon  treaty  and  pledged  that  the  security  of  each  state  shall  rest 
upon  the  strength  of  the  whole.  The  initiating  nucleus  of  the 
membership  of  the  League  should  be  the  nations  associated  as 
belligerents  in  winning  the  war. 

The  League  should  aim  at  promoting  the  liberty,  progress, 
and  fair  economic  opportunity  of  all  nations,  and  the  orderly 
development  of  the  world. 

It  should  ensure  peace  by  eliminating  causes  of  dissension,  by 
deciding  controversies  by  peaceable  means,  and  by  uniting  the 
potential  force  of  all  the  members  as  a  standing  menace  against 
any  nation  that  seeks  to  upset  the  peace  of  the  world. 

The  advantages  of  membership  in  the  League,  both  eco- 
nomically and  from  the  point  of  view  of  security,  should  be  so 
clear  that  all  nations  will  desire  to  be  members  of  it. 

For  this  purpose  it  is  necessary  to  create — 

1.  For   the    decision    of   justiciable    questions,   an   impartial 
tribunal  whose  jurisdiction  shall  not  depend  upon  the  assent  of 
the  parties  to  the  controversy;  provision  to  be  made  for  enforc- 
ing its  decisions. 

2.  For  questions  that  are  not  justiciable  in  their  character, 
a  Council  of  Conciliation,  as  mediator,  which  shall  hear,  con- 
sider, and  make  recommendations ;  and  failing  acquiescence  by 
the  parties  concerned,  the  League  shall  determine  what  action, 
if  any,  shall  be  taken. 

3.  An  administrative  organization  for  the  conduct  of  affairs 
of  common  interest,  the  protection  and  care  of  backward  regions 
and  internationalized  places,    and   such    matters   as   have   been 
jointly  administered  before  and  during  the  war.     We  hold  that 
this  object  must  be  attained  by  methods  and  through  machinery 
that  will  ensure  both  stability  and  progress;  preventing,  on  the 

1  Adopted  at  a  meeting  of  the  Executive  Committee,  held  in  New 
York,  November  23,  1918,  as  the  official  platform  of  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace,  superseding  the  proposals  adopted  at  the  organization  of  the  League 
in  Philadelphia,  June  17,  1915.  Reprinted  from  a  recent  circular. 


46  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

one  hand,  any  crystallization  of  the  status  quo  that  will  defeat 
the  forces  of  healthy  growth  and  changes,  and  providing,  on  the 
other  hand,  a  way  by  which  progress  can  be  secured  and  neces- 
sary change  ^effected  without  recourse  to  war. 

4.  A  representative  Congress  to  formulate  and  codify  rules 
of  international  law,  to  inspect  the  work  of  the  administrative 
bodies  and  to  consider  any  matter  affecting  the  tranquility  of  the 
world  or  the  progress  or  betterment  of  human  relations.     Its 
deliberations  should  be  public. 

5.  An  Executive  Body,  able  to  speak  with  authority  in  the 
name  of  the  nations  represented,  and  to  act  in  case  the  peace  of 
the  world  is  endangered. 

The  representation  of  the  different  nations  in  the  organs  of 
the  League  should  be  in  proportion  to  the  responsibilities  and 
obligations  they  assume.  The  rules  of  international  law  should 
not  be  defeated  for  lack  of  unanimity. 

A  resort  to  force  by  any  nation  should  be  prevented  by  a 
solemn  agreement'  that  any  aggression  will  be  met  immediately 
by  such  an  overwhelming  economic  and  military  force  that  it 
will  not  be  attempted. 

No  member  of  the  League  should  make  any  other  offensive 
or  defensive  treaty  or  alliance,  and  all  treaties  of  whatever 
nature  made  by  any  member  of  the  League  should  at  once  be 
made  public. 

Such  a  League  must  be  formed  at  the  time  of  the  definitive 
peace,  or  the  opportunity  may  be  lost  forever. 

This  VICTORY  PROGRAM  is  offered  for  the  consideration 
and  endorsement  of  all  organizations  and  individuals  interested 
in  the  problems  of  international  reconstruction. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  47 


LEAGUE  OF  FREE  NATIONS  ASSOCIATION1 

The  object  of  this  society  is  to  promote  a  more  general  reali- 
zation and  support  by  the  public  of  the  conditions  indispensable 
to  the  success,  at  the  Peace  Conference  and  thereafter,  of  Amer- 
ican aims  and  policy  as  outlined  by  President  Wilson. 

The  particular  aims,  such  as  the  liberation  of  Belgium,  Serbia, 
Poland  and  Bohemia,  and  their  future  protection  from  aggres- 
sion, and  America's  own  future  security  on  land  and  sea,  are  de- 
pendent upon  the  realization  of  the  more  general  aim  of  a 
sounder  future  international  order,  the  corner-stone  of  which 
must  be  a  League  of  Nations. 

The  purposes  of  such  a  league  are  to  achieve  for  all  peoples, 
great  and  small: 

(1)  Security:  the  due  protection  of  national  existence. 

(2)  Equality  of  economic  opportunity. 

******  * 

The  fundamental  principle  underlying  the  League  of  Nations 
is  that  the  security  and  rights  of  each  member  shall  rest  upon 
the  strength  of  the  whole  league,  pledged  to  uphold  by  their 
combined  power  international  arrangements  ensuring  fair  treat- 
ment for  all. 

The  first  concern  of  a  League  of  Nations  is  to  find  out  what 
those  arrangements  should  be,  what  rules  of  international  life 
will  ensure  justice  to  all,  how  far  the  old  international  law  or 
practice  must  be  modified  to  secure  that  end.  It  is  to  the  in- 
terest of  the  entire  world  that  every  nation  should  attain  its 
maximum  economic  development,  provided  it  does  not  prevent 
a  similar  development  of  other  nations.  The  realization  of  this 
aim  depends  upon  gradually  increasing  freedom  of  mutual  ex- 
change with  its  resulting  economic  interdependence.  It  is  cer- 
tain, for  instance,  that  if  anything  approaching  equality  of  eco- 


1  The  League  of  Free  Nations  Association  has  just  been  launched  un- 
der the  presidency  of  Norman  Hapgood,  with  Richard  S.  Childs  as  chair- 
man of  the  executive  committee;  Prof.  Stephen  P.  Duggan,  secretary,  and 
Prof.  Wendell  Bush,  treasurer.  Lincoln  Colcord  is  publicity  director  in 
a  campaign  to  arouse  American  interest  in  the  social  issues  at  stake  in 
the  settlement,  in  the  creation  of  a  League  of  Nations  and  in  its  demo- 
cratic constitution.  This  declaration  of  principles  is  reprinted  from  the 
Survey  of  November  30.  p.  250. 


48  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

nomic  opportunity  as  between  great  and  small,  powerful  and 
weak,  is  to  be  obtained,  the  following  must  be  guaranteed  for  all 
on  equal  terms: 

(a)  No  state  shall  accord  to  one  neighbor  privileges  not  ac- 
corded to  others — this  principle  to  apply  to  the  purchase  of  raw 
material  as  well  as  to  access  to  markets.  Equality  of  economic 
opportunity  does  not  mean  the  abolition  of  all  tariffs  or  the 
abolition  of  the  right  of  self-governing  states  to  determine 
whether  free  trade  or  protection  is  to  their  best  interests. 

(&)  States  exercising  authority  in  non-self-governing 
territories  shall  not  exercise  that  power  as  a  means 
of  securing  a  privileged  economic  position  for  their  own 
nationals;  economic  opportunity  in  such  territories  shall  be  open 
to  all  peoples  on  equal  terms,  the  peoples  of  nations  possessing 
no  such  territories  being  in  the  same  position  economically  as 
those  that  possess  great  subject  empires.  Investments  and  con- 
cessions in  backward  countries  should  be  placed  under  interna- 
tional control. 

(c)  Goods  and  persons  of  the  citizens  of  all  states  should  be 
transported  on  equal  terms  on  international  rivers,  canals,  straits, 
or  railroads. 

(d)  Landlocked  states  must  be  guaranteed  access  to  the  sea 
on  equal  terms  both  by  equality  of  treatment  on  communications 
running  through  other  states,  and  by  the  use  of  seaports. 

*        *        *        *        *        *        * 

The  administrative  machinery  of  a  workable  internationalism 
already  exists  in  rudimentary  form.  The  international  bodies 
that  have  already  been  established  by  the  Allied  belligerents — 
who  now  number  over  a  score — to  deal  with  their  combined  mil- 
itary resources,  shipping  and  transport,  food,  raw  materials,  and 
finance,  have  been  accorded  immense  powers.  Many  of  these 
activities — particularly  those  relating  to  the  international  control 
of  raw  material  shipping — will  have  to  be  continued  during  the 
very  considerable  period  of  demobilization  and  reconstruction 
which  will  follow  the  war.  Problems  of  demobilization  and  civil 
reemployment  particularly  will  demand  the  efficient  representa- 
tion of  labor  and  liberal  elements  of  the  various  states.  With 
international  commissions,  and  exercising  the  same  control  over 
the  economic  resources  of  the  world,  an  international  govern- 
ment with  powerful  sanction  will  in  fact  exist. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  49 

The  international  machinery  will  need  democratization  as 
well  as  progressive  differentiation  of  function.  If  the  League  of 
Nations  is  not  to  develop  into  an  immense  bureaucratic  union  of 
governments  instead  of  a  democratic  union  of  peoples,  the  ele- 
ments of  (a)  complete  publicity  and  (6)  effective  popular  repre- 
sentation must  be  insisted  upon.  The  first  of  these  is  implicit  in 
the  principle,  so  emphasized  by  President  Wilson,  that  in  the 
future  there  must  be  an  end  to  secret  diplomacy.  The  second 
can  only  be  met  by  some  representation  of  the  peoples  in  a  body 
with  legislative  powers  over  international  affairs — which  must 
include  minority  elements — as  distinct  from  the  governments  of 
the  constituent  states  of  the  league.  It  is  the  principle  which  has 
found  expression  in  the  American  Union  as  contrasted  with  the 
federated  states  of  the  German  empire.  If  the  government  of 
the  United  States  consisted  merely  of  the  representatives  of 
forty-eight  states,  the  Union  could  never  have  been  maintained 
on  a  democratic  basis.  Happily  it  consists  also  of  the  repre- 
sentatives of  a  hundred  million  people.  The  new  international 
government  must  make  the  same  provision  and  deliberately  aim 
to  see  that  all  the  great  parties  and  groups  in  the  various  states 
obtain  representation. 

The  assurance  of  the  political,  civil,  religious,  and  cultural 
rights  of  minorities  within  states  is  an  even  more  difficult  prob- 
lem. But  genuinely  democratic  parliamentary  institutions  in  the 
league,  ensuring  some  expression  of  minority  opinion  as  well  as 
complete  publicity,  will  be  a  strong  deterrent  if  not  a  complete 
assurance  against  tyrannical  treatment  of  minorities  within  its 
constituent  states. 

Indispensable  to  the  success  of  American  policy  are  at  least 
the  following: 

A  universal  association  of  nations  based  upon  the  principle 
that  the  security  of  each  shall  rest  upon  the  strength  of  the 
whole,  pledged  to  uphold  international  arrangements  giving 
equality  of  political  right  and  economic  opportunity,  the  associa- 
tion to  be  based  upon  a  constitution  democratic  in  character, 
possessing  a  central  council  or  parliament  as  truly  representative 
as  possible  of  all  the  political  parties  in  the  constituent  nations, 
open  to  any  nation,  and  only  such  nation,  whose  government  is 
responsible  to  the  people.  The  formation  of  such  an  association 
should  be  an  integral  part  of  the  settlement  itself  and  its  terri- 


50  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

torial  problems,  and  not  distinct  therefrom.  It  should  prohibit 
the  formation  of  minor  leagues  or  special  covenants,  or  special 
economic  combinations,  boycotts,  or  exclusions.  Differences  be- 
tween members  should  be  submitted  to  its  judicial  bodies.  Its 
administrative  machinery  should  be  built  up  from  the  inter-allied 
bodies  differentiated  in  function  and  democratized  in  constitu- 
tion. The  effective  sanction  of  the  association  should  not  be 
alone  the  combined  military  power  of  the  whole  used  as  an  in- 
strument of  repression,  but  such  use  of  the  world-wide  control 
of  economic  resources  as  would  make  it  more  advantageous  for 
a  state  to  become  and  remain  a  member  of  the  association  and 
to  cooperate  with  it,  than  to  challenge  it. 

All  the  principles  above  outlined  are  merely  an  extension  of 
the  principles  that  have  been  woven  into  the  fabric  of  our  own 
national  life. 


THE  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  SOCIETY1 

The  League  of  Nations  Society  (i  Central  Buildings, 
Westminster),  was  founded  March  10,  1915.  The  chairman 
is  the  Rt.  Hon.  W.  H.  Dickinson,  M.  P. 

Program 

1.  That    a    treaty    shall   be    made    as    soon   as   possible 
whereby  as  many  states  as  are  willing  shall  form  a  league 
binding  themselves  to  use  peaceful  methods  for  dealing  with 
all  disputes  arising  among  them. 

2.  That  such  methods  shall  be  as  follows: 

(a)  All    disputes    arising    out    of    questions    of    inter- 

national law  or  the  interpretation  of  treaties 
shall  be  referred  to  The  Hague  Court  of 
Arbitration,  or  some  other  judicial  tribunal, 
whose  decisions  shall  be  final  and  shall  be 
carried  into  effect  by  the  parties  concerned. 

(b)  All  other  disputes  shall  be  referred  to  and  inves- 

tigated and  reported  upon  by  a  Council  of  In- 
quiry and  Conciliation,  the  Council  to  be  repre- 
sentative of  the  states  which  form  the  league. 

1  From  "Approaches  to  the  Great  Settlement,"  by  Emily  Greene  Balch. 
p.  251.  Huebsch.  1918. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  51 

3.  That  the  states  which  are  members  of  the  league  shall 
unite  in  any  action  necessary  for  insuring  that  every  mem- 
ber shall  abide  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty. 

4.  That  the  states  which  are  members  of  the  league  shall 
make  provision  for  mutual  defense,  diplomatic,  economic,  or 
military,  in  the  event  of  any  of  them  being  attacked  by  a 
state,  not  a  member  of  the  league,  which  refuses  to  submit 
the  case  to  an  appropriate  tribunal  or  council. 

5.  That  any  civilized  state  desiring  to  join  the  league 
shall  be  admitted  to  membership. 


BRITISH  LEAGUE  OF  FREE  NATIONS 
ASSOCIATION1 

The  new  British  organization  to  promote  an  active  propa- 
ganda for  the  formation  of  a  World  League  of  Free  Nations  as 
the  necessary  basis  of  a  permanent  peace,  sends  out  an  official 
pamphlet  which  states  first  these 

Objects  of  the  Association 

To  advocate  the  establishment  forthwith  of  a  League  of  Free 
Peoples  desirous  of  ending  war  forever  and  willing  to  agree 
with  one  another, 

1.  To   submit  all   disputes   arising    between    themselves    to 
methods  of  peaceful  settlement. 

2.  To  suppress  jointly,  by  the  use  of  all  means  at  their  dis- 
posal, any  attempt  by  any  State  to  disturb  the  peace  of 
the  world  by  acts  of  war. 

3.  To  create  a  Supreme  Court,  and  to  respect  and  enforce 
its  decisions. 

4.  To  establish  a  permanent  Council  to  supervise  and  con- 
trol armaments,  to  act  as  mediator  in  matters  of  differ- 
ence not  suitable  for  submission  to  the  Supreme  Court, 
to  concert  measures  for  joint  action  in  matters  political 
and  economic  affecting  the  rights  and  interests  of  mem- 
bers of  the  League. 

1  World  Court  for  November,   1918.     p.  672. 


52  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

5.  To  admit  to  the  League  on  terms  of  equality  all  peoples 
able  and  willing  to  give  effective  guarantees  of  their  loyal 
intentions  to  observe  its  covenants,  and  so  to  prepare  the 
framework  of  a  World  League  which  shall  guarantee  the 
freedom  of  all  nationalities;  act  as  trustee  and  guardian 
of  uncivilized  races  and  undeveloped  territories;  substi- 
tute for  national  armaments  an  international  force  to 
guarantee  order  in  the  World,  and  thus  finally  liberate 
mankind  from  the  curse  of  war. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  this  Association  that  such  a  League  should 
act  through  a  Council  representing  the  wills  of  its  constituent 
nations,  and  that  in  determining  the  constitution  of  such  a  Coun- 
cil due  regard  should  be  had  to  the  standing,  the  stage  of  civ- 
ilization and  the  population  of  each  State.  The  purpose  of  the 
League  is  to  ensure  the  ordered  development  of  the  world.  It 
does  not  propose  to  perpetuate  existing  conditions  and  boun- 
daries for  all  time,  but  to  secure  that  war  shall  not  be  the 
method  of  their  readjustment  The  Council  of  the  League 
should  have  at  least  the  threefold  function  of — 

1.  Maintaining  a  free   and  independent   Supreme   Court  in 
which  States  may  sue  and  be  sued. 

2.  Providing  for  the  codification,  amendment,  and  extension 
of  international  law;  for  joint  consideration  of  questions 
affecting  transit,  tariffs,  access  to  raw  materials,  migra- 
tion, health,  and  international  intercourse  generally;  and 
for  intervention  and  conciliation  in  all  disputes  between 
the  constituent  States. 

3.  Supervising,    limiting,    and   controlling   the   military   and 
naval  forces  and  the  armament  industries  of  the  world. 

The  general  secretary  of  the  League  of  Free  Nations  Asso- 
ciation which  was  inaugurated  at  Northampton  in  September  is 
Capt  W.  Henry  Williams,  22  Buckingham  Gate,  London, 
S.  W.  I. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  53 


FRENCH  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  SOCIETY1 

A  number  of  eminent  Frenchmen  are  behind  a  movement  to 
form  in  France  a  propaganda  organization  similar  in  general 
purpose  and  method  to  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace.  A  pro- 
visional organization  committee,  composed  of  Ferdinand  Buis- 
son,  Albert  Thomas  and  J.  Prudhommeaux,  has  written  to  the 
League  outlining  the  plan  of  the  new  association  and  asking  sup- 
port. .  .  .  The  Honorary  President  of  the  French  association  is 
Leon  Bourgeois,  chairman  of  the  commission  appointed  by  the 
French  government  to  draw  up  an  official  plan  for  a  League  of 
Nations.  This  fact  suggests  that  the  plan  of  the  organization 
may  be  closely  analogous  to  the  French  government  plan. 

The  French  Society  agrees  with  the  new  League  of  Free  Na- 
tions Society  in  Great  Britain  that  membership  in  the  League  of 
Nations  should  be  granted  only  to  nations  whose  sincerity  is 
guaranteed  by  democratic  institutions,  and  that  the  League  should 
be  established  now,  before  the  close  of  the  war.  The  advance 
proposals  make  the  interesting  suggestion,  as  one  reason  for  im- 
mediate constitution  of  the  League,  that  the  Society  of  Nations, 
composed  of  the  present  Allies,"  should  control  and  conduct  the 
negotiations  for  the  coming  peace." 


APPEAL  TO  FORM  A  FRENCH  SOCIETY 
OF  NATIONS  2 

[The  French  appeal  to  form  an  association  to  establish  a 
Society  of  Nations  now,  which  appears  in  translation  below, 
will  be  read  with  great  interest  for  the  light  it  throws  upon  a 
French  point  of  view.  With  M.  Buisson,  Albert  Thomas  and 
J.  Prudhommeaux  compose  the  Provisional  Committee  issu- 
ing the  appeal.  M.  Leon  Bourgeois  is  honorary  president  of 
the  French  Association.] 

In  every  land,  since  four  years  of  war  have  ruined  and  worn 
out  the  people,  one  thought  is  asserting  itself  more  positively 
day  by  day:  it  is  necessary  for  the  safety  of  the  world  that  we 

1  From  the  League  Bulletin,  October  12,  1918. 

2  By  Ferdinand  Buisson.     In  World  Court  for  November,  1918.    p.  669, 


54  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

should  not  have  simply  a  treaty  of  peace  of  the  traditional  type— 
a  peace  based  on  force.  The  world  must  not  be  menaced  with 
such  a  conflict  again.  The  coming  peace  must  be  enduring  and 
certain.  The  reign  of  law  must  replace  the  reign  of  violence. 
Otherwise  the  battle  is  lost  for  all  of  us. 

Thus,  that  which  was  the  dream  of  noble  precursors  is  become 
the  conscious  aim  of  the  soldiers  of  the  democracies  who  with 
one  accord,  declare:  "We  ourselves  are  fighting  that  our  chil- 
dren may  not  have  to  fight." 

Thus,  the  project  outlined  before  the  war  by  the  negotiators 
at  the  Hague,  the  full  realization  of  which  the  secret  plans  for 
aggression  on  the  part  of  the  Central  Powers  had  blocked,  im- 
poses itself  to-day  as  a  matter  of  necessity  on  Governments 
which  aim  to  defend  the  right.  It  is  this  project  which  President 
Wilson  has  proposed  anew,  taking  up  once  more  and  clothing 
in  luminous  phrase  the  original  French  formula  of  a  "Society  of 
Nations." 

In  several  countries,  statesmen,  students,  thinkers,  and,  what 
is  most  important,  men  of  good-will,  are  forming  groups  to 
study  the  problem  of  such  a  League  of  Nations  and  to  propagate 
its  principles.  Such  a  transformation  of  the  world  can  be 
realized  only  by  wide  popular  support  and  earnest  faith. 

In  America,  The  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  of  which  the 
president  is  Mr.  W.  Howard  Taft,  and  the  World's  Court 
League,  under  the  direction  of  Mr.  Charles  Lathrop  Pack, 
Nicholas  Murray  Butler  and  Albert  Shaw ;  in  England,  a  League 
of  Nations  Society,  with  Mr.  Aneurin  Williams,  and  the  League 
of  Free  Nations  Association,  with  Major  Davies,  have  worked 
to  this  end.  In  France,  despite  the  useful  essays  in  this  direc- 
tion and  plans  frequently  discussed,  as  yet  no  association  is 
found  capable  of  replying  with  authority  to  the  great  foreign 
associations. 
************** 

Among  the  earnest  proponents  of  the  Society  of  Nations 
there  exists  in  America,  in  England  and  in  France,  a  great  di- 
versity of  conceptions.  The  French  point  of  view  must  be  de- 
fined. We  invite  to  join  us  all  -who  accept  the  following  ideas : 

I.  It  is  necessary  that  this  war  should  end  not  with  special 
treaties  among  the  belligerents  which  would  sanction  the  work  of 
might,  but  with  the  establishment  of  an  international  authority 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  55 

imposing  on  nations  for  all  the  struggles  present  or  to  come,  of 
whatever  kind  they  may  be,  the  regime,  procedure  and  guaran- 
ties of  law. 

2.  The    fundamental  principle    of   law,   the   application    of 
which  international  authority  will  guarantee  for  all,  is  the  right 
of  peoples  freely  to  determine  their  own  destiny.    Nations,  small 
and  large,  have  an  equal  right  to  complete  independence.     All 
sovereignties  are  equal  before  the  law.     All  should  submit  to 
decisions  arrived  at  in  common. 

3.  The  Society  of  Nations  should  be  open  to  every  nation 
which  fulfills  the  following  conditions: 

(o)  To  enter  into  an  agreement  to  respect  the  right  of 
peoples  to  determine  their  own  destiny,  and  to  resort  only  to 
judicial  solutions  for  the  settlement  of  their  disputes,  the  use 
of  force  to  be  reserved  exclusively  to  the  international  society 
itself,  as  the  supreme  sanction  in  case  one  of  the  member  States 
should  resist  its  decisions; 

(fr)  To  be  able  to  enter  into  valid  covenants,  especially  in 
matters  of  war  and  peace,  a  possibility  conditioned  on  its  possess- 
ing a  modicum  of  democratic  institutions  which  will  make  cer- 
tain that  the  will  of  the  people  prevails  and  that  the  government 
is  adequately  controlled.  Trustworthy  adhesion  to  the  Society 
of  Nations  must  come  not  from  governments  alone  but  from  the 
people's  representatives  as  well. 

This  is  not  the  place  to  consider  whether  the  Society  of  Na- 
tions should  be  open  or  closed,  whether  it  should  be  limited  to 
the  Allies  alone  or  should  embrace  the  enemy.  The  Society  of 
Nations  is  universal  in  its  nature  and  every  nation,  in  principle, 
may  be  admitted  to  it.  But  since  its  fundamental  purpose  is  the 
triumph  of  law,  it  can  be  safely  established  only  among  free  na- 
tions which  covenant  to  respect  the  provisions  of  a  treaty  and 
exchange  the  necessary  guaranties  in  principle  and  practice. 

The  general  principles  being  thus  established,  that  which  for 
us  remains  certain  is  that: 

1.  The  Allies  should  form  their  association  immediately  on 
this  basis.    They  should  work  it  out  as  completely  as  possible  in 
the  direction  of  sanctions  of  every  land,  moral,  judicial,  eco- 
nomic and,  in  the  last  resort,  military,  as  well  as  in  that  of  pro- 
mulgating general  rules  of  law; 

2.  Propaganda  can  and  ought  to  be  carried  on  among  all 


56  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

peoples,  even  enemy,  in  order  to  indicate  upon  what  foundations 
the  reign  of  law  can  guarantee  the  durable  peace  universally 
desired ; 

3.  The -Society  of  Nations  thus  formed  should  control  and 
conduct  the  negotiations  for  the  coming  peace. 

It  is  to  spread  these  ideas  that  we  ask  you  to  join  us. 

As  M.  Leon  Bourgeois  said  in  1909  at  Rheims :  "Is  there  a 
cause  which  is  higher  and  more  worthy,  particularly  of  our  coun- 
try, of  that  France  against  whom  the  doctrines  of  violence, 
negation  and  barbarism  cannot  prevail,  of  her  who  so  often  in 
the  past  has  been,  and  who  in  the  future  will  remain,  the  guar- 
dian of  liberty  and  the  crusader  for  Right." 

The  Provisional  Committee,  FERDINAND    BUISSON, 

ALBERT  THOMAS, 
J.  PRUDHOMMEAUX. 

Temporary  Office: 

74,  Rue  de  1'Universite,  Paris. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  ! 

There  have  been  three  stages  in  the  growth  of  this  idea, 
answering  to  the  germination  of  the  seed,  the  opening  of  the 
flower,  and  the  ripening  of  the  fruit.  It  germinated,  as  we 
said,  in  the  study.  Between  August,  1914,  and  the  spring  of 
I9I5>  groups  of  students  and  experts  in  many  different  coun- 
tries turned  towards  the  same  problem.  In  its  practical 
effect  the  American  group  which  issued  in  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace,  and  of  which  ex-President  Taft  was  the  most 
distinguished  member,  was  the  most  important.  In  this 
country  the  group  which  eventually  founded  the  League  of 
Nations  Society,  Lord  Bryce's  group,  and  a  committee  of  the 
Fabian  Society  were  all  at  work  upon  the  same  ground'.  It 
was  natural  that  at  these  early  stages  the  difficult  problem 
of  means  of  preventing  war  and  methods  of  settling  inter- 
national disputes  engrossed  attention,  and  that  the  seed  ger- 
minated in  the  various  schemes  which  have  since  been  given 
to  the  world. 

1  New  Statesman.     9:342-4.     July   14,   1917. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  57 

The  next  stage  was  the  flowering  of  the  idea  among  the 
"common  people."  It  was  obtained  by  propaganda  and 
organisation.  In  the  late  spring  or  early  summer  of  1915  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  in  America  and  the  League  of  Na- 
tions Society  in  England  were  founded  with  the  object  of 
pushing  the  schemes  which  have  been  worked  out  by  the  ex- 
perts. At  The  Hague  a  somewhat  similar,  but  international 
instead  of  national  organisation,  which  has  had  considerable 
influence  among  the  few  European  neutral  peoples,  had  come  into 
existence,  the  Organisation  Centrale  pour  une  Paix  Durable. 
But  it  was  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  which  first  suc- 
ceeded in  widely  popularising  the  idea.  Its  extremely  short 
and  able  scheme  had  been  drafted  by  Mr.  Taft  himself,  and 
among  its  most  ardent  supporters  was  another  man  who  had 
practical  diplomatic  experience,  Mr.  Theodore  Marburg.  The 
project  was  launched  at  an  immense  public  meeting  on  June 
I7th,  1915,  in  the  building  in  Philadelphia  which  had  wit- 
nessed the  signing  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  The 
rapid  success  of  the  movement  showed  that  the  American 
people,  at  least,  were  already  ripe  for  this  new  idea  of  in- 
ternationalism; but  it  was  also  partly  due  to  the  American 
genius  for  propaganda.  The  organisation  was  spread  over 
the  face  of  the  land,  to  quote  Mr.  Marburg,  "much  in  the 
manner  of  a  political  campaign,"  and  the  fact  that  in  under 
two  years  the  League  received  contributions  amounting  to 
136,000  dollars  must  make  the  mouths  of  propagandist 
treasurers  in  this  niggardly  country  water. 

Many  a  fine  idea  has  withered  and  perished  in  the  stage 
between  its  blossoming  among  people  and  its  maturing  in 
the  cabinets  of  princes  and  statesmen.  No  exotic  or  Utopian 
flower  can  survive  for  long  the  chilling  winds  that  blow 
between  government  offices.  But  in  this  case  the  passage 
from  popular  enthusiasm  to  official  recognition  and  adoption 
was  both  rapid  and  secure.  It  was  due  almost  entirely  to 
the  action  of  a  single  statesman,  and  to  the  dramatic  revolu- 
tion in  international  policy  which  this  conversion  entailed. 
The  first  public  sign  which  President  Wilson  gave  of  the 
direction  in  which  his  thoughts  were  traveling  was  in  Febru- 
ary, 1916,  when  he  said:  "I  pray  God  that  if  this  contest  have 
no  other  result,  it  will,  at  least,  have  the  result  of  creating 


58  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

an  international  tribunal,  and  producing  some  sort  of  joint 
guarantee  of  peace  on  the  part  of  the  great  nations  of  the 
world."  It  is  noticeable  that  at  this  stage  President  Wilson's 
conception  of  the  League  was  confined  to  its  formal  and  nar- 
rower object,  embodied  in  the  different  schemes — namely,  an 
organisation  for  preventing  war  by  settling  disputes.  Three 
months  later,  in  an  address  to  the  American  League,  he 
made  a  pronouncement  which  immediately  carried  the  idea 
into  practical  politics,  and,  by  foreshadowing  a  complete 
revolution  in  American  foreign  policy,  forced  it  upon  the 
serious  attention  of  all  the  states  and  statesmen  of  the  world. 
For  he  definitely  states  that  the  United  States  would  be  will- 
ing to  join  "a  universal  association  of  nations  ...  to  prevent 
any  war  begun  either  contrary  to  treaty  covenants  or  with- 
out warning  and  full  submission  of  the  causes  to  the  opinion 
of  the  world — a  virtual  guarantee  of  territorial  integrity  and 
political  independence."  Here  again  the  idea  is  expressed 
negatively  as  the  prevention  of  war  and  the  pacific  settlement 
of  disputes.  But  in  America  the  idea  developed  politically 
with  surprising  rapidity.  In  August  an  Act  of  Congress  au- 
thorized the  President  to  call  a  Conference  of  the  Powers 
after  the  war  for  the  purpose  of  organising  the  League. 
The  program  of  the  League  was  embodied  as  a  plank  in 
the  platform  of  the  Democratic  Party  for  the  Presidential 
election.  And  in  a  series  of  speeches,  delivered  by  Mr.  Wilson 
both  before  and  after  his  re-election,  obviously  with  one  eye 
upon  the  American  people  and  the  other  upon  the  belliger- 
ents, he  educated  his  own  people  in  the  notion  that  in  no 
future  war  could  America  be  neutral,  and  he  greatly  enlarged 
his  original  conception  of  the  League.  For  in  these  later 
speeches  it  is  upon  the  League  as  a  basis  for  active  inter- 
national co-operation  and  a  new  international  system  that  he 
concentrates  attention,  and  the  possibility  of  this,  as  he 
clearly  points  out,  comes  from  the  fact  that  the  League  alone 
can  provide  an  adequate  guarantee  for  international  agree- 
ments and  the  basis  for  permanent  common  action  between 
different  states. 

This  new  orientation  of  American  policy  evoked  an  im- 
mediate response  from  the  statesmen  of  Europe,  and  par- 
ticularly from  those  of  this  country.  As  early  as  May,  1916, 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  59 

Mr.  Balfour  gave  a  cautious  recognition  to  the  idea;  but 
eight  months  later  he  states  categorically  that  one  of  the 
conditions  of  a  durable  peace  "is  that  behind  international 
law,  and  behind  all  treaty  arrangements  for  preventing  or 
limiting  hostilities,  some  form  of  international  sanction 
should  be  devised  which  would  give  pause  to  the  hardiest 
aggressor.  These  conditions  may  be  difficult  of  fulfilment. 
But  we  believe  them  to  be  in  general  harmony  with  the  Presi- 
dent's ideals."  Viscount  Grey,  Mr.  Asquith,  Mr.  Lloyd 
George,  and  Mr.  Bonar  Law  in  this  country,  and  M.  Briand 
and  M.  Ribot  in  France,  have  all  expressed  their  agreement 
with  the  new  American  policy.  Finally  the  proposal  to  estab- 
lish a  League  of  Nations  after  the  war  was  officially  pro- 
claimed as  part  of  the  policy  of  the  Entente  Governments  in 
the  Allied  Note  to  America  of  January  loth,  1917.  It  will, 
perhaps,  be  useful,  as  indicating  the  attitude  of  the  Entente 
Governments,  to  quote  this  document,  and  the  pronounce- 
ments of  the  present  Prime  Ministers  of  Great  Britain  and 
France.  The  Allied  Governments  in  their  Note  stated  that 
"in  a  general  way  they  desire  to  declare  their  respect  for  the 
lofty  sentiments  inspiring  the  American  Note  and  their 
whole-hearted  agreement  with  the  proposal  to  create  a 
League  of  Nations  which  shall  assure  peace  and  justice 
throughout  the  world.  They  recognise  all  benefits  which  will 
accrue  to  the  cause  of  humanity  and  civilisation  from  the  in- 
stitution of  international  arrangements  designed  to  prevent 
violent  conflicts  between  nations,  and  so  framed  as  to  pro- 
vide a  sanction  necessary  to  their  enforcement,  lest  an  illu- 
sory security  should  merely  serve  to  facilitate  fresh  acts  of 
aggression."  Mr.  Lloyd  George,  a  day  after  this  Note  was 
presented,  said:  "The  best  security  for  peace  will  be  that 
nations  will  band  themselves  together  to  punish  the  first 
peace-breaker.  In  the  armouries  of  Europe  every  weapon 
will  be  a  sword  of  justice.  In  the  government  of  men  every 
army  will  be  the  constabulary  of  peace."  M.  Ribot,  in  June, 
1917,  said:  "We  echo  the  whole  desire  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States.  Henceforth  justice  must  have  as  a  guar- 
antee the  League  of  Nations  which  is  organising  itself  before 
our  eyes,  and  which  to-morrow  will  be  mistress  of  the 
world." 


60  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

This  would  be  a  remarkable  record  in  the  history  of  any 
political  reform,  but  its  significance  is  increased  when  one 
remembers  the  immense  bias  towards  conservatism  which  is 
inevitably  operative  in  international  affairs.  In  this  short 
sketch  we  have  naturally  directed  attention  to  the  growth  of 
the  idea  in  America  and  the  countries  of  the  Allies.  But  the 
same  development  has  taken  place  in  the  neutral  countries 
of  Europe.  In  the  Swedish  Riksdag,  the  Dutch  Second 
Chamber,  and  the  Swiss  National  Council  resolutions  on  the 
subject  have  been  debated.  Those  who  speak  for  the  Gov- 
ernments of  these  nations  are  necessarily  inclined  under  pres- 
ent circumstances  to  extreme  caution,  and  the  attitude  of  the 
Dutch  Foreign  Secretary  may  be  quoted  as  typical.  When 
the  question  was  discussed  in  the  Dutch  Chamber  he  re- 
fused to  commit  himself,  but  went  on  to  express  the  desire  that 
"after  the  end  of  the  war  a  collective,  international  agree- 
ment should  be  created,  which  would  bind  the  states  to  sub- 
mit all  international  disputes  to  judicial  progress  in  a  Court, 
or  to  the  investigation  and  recommendation  of  a  Council  of 
Conciliation,  with  guarantees  for  an  impartial  composition  of 
these  bodies,  with  an  obligation  in  no  case  to  commit  an  act 
of  hostility  until  the  Court  has  pronounced  or  the  Council 
reported,  and  until  the  lapse  thereafter  of  an  appointed  time." 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  ENDORSED 

GOVERNMENTS  PLEDGE  SUPPORT  TO  A 
LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS1 

Official  Correspondence  and  Resolutions 

THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

In  the  measures  to  be  taken  to  secure  the  future  peace  of 
the  world  the  people  and  Government  of  the  United  States  are 
as  vitally  and  as  directly  interested  as  the  Governments  now  at 
war.  Their  interest,  moreover,  in  the  means  to  be  adopted  to 
relieve  the  smaller  and  weaker  peoples  of  the  world  of  the  peril 
of  wrong  and  violence  is  as  quick  and  ardent  as  that  of  any 
other  people  or  government.  They  stand  ready,  and  even  eager, 
to  cooperate  in  the  accomplishment  of  these  ends  when  the  war 
is  over  with  every  influence  and  resource  at  their  command. — 
President  Wilson's  identic  note  to  the  warring  nations,  dated  at 
Washington,  December  18,  1916. 

THE  GOVERNMENTS  OF  THE  ENTENTE  ALLIES 

In  a  general  way  they  (the  Allied  Governments)  desire  to 
declare  their  respect  for  the  lofty  sentiments  inspiring  the  Ameri- 
can Note  (of  December  i8th)  and  their  wholehearted  agreement 
with  the  proposal  to  create  a  league  of  nations  which  shall  assure 
peace  and  justice  throughout  the  world.  They  recognize  all  the 
benefits  that  would  accrue  to  the  cause  of  humanity  and  civiliza- 
tion from  the  institution  of  international  arrangements  designed 
to  prevent  violent  conflicts  between  nations,  and  so  framed  as  to 
provide  the  sanctions  necessary  to  their  enforcement,  lest  an 
illusory  security  should  serve  merely  to  facilitate  fresh  acts  of 
aggression.— Joint  reply  to  the  American  Note,  dated  Paris, 
January  10,  1917. 

THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN 

His  Majesty's  Government  .  .  .  feels  strongly  that  the  dura- 
bility of  peace  must  largely  depend  on  its  character  and  that  no 
stable  system  of  international  relations  can  be  built  on  founda- 

1  From  "A  Reference  Book  for  Speakers,"  issued  by  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace. 


62  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

tions  which  are  essentially  and  hopelessly  defective.  .  .  .  There 
are  those  who  think  that  for  this  disease  international  treaties 
and  international  laws  may  provide  a  sufficient  cure.  .  .  .  The 
people  of  this  country  ...  do  not  believe  peace  can  be  durable 
if  it  be  not  based  on  the  success  of  the  allied  cause.  For  a 
durable  peace  can  hardly  be  expected  unless  three  conditions  are 
fulfilled :  the  first  is  that  the  existing  causes  of  international  un- 
rest should  be  as  far  as  possible  removed  or  weakened ;  the 
second  is  that  the  aggressive  aims  and  the  unscrupulous  methods 
of  the  Central  Powers  should  fall  into  disrepute  among  their 
own  peoples;  the  third  is  that  behind  international  law  and 
behind  all  treaty  arrangements  for  preventing  or  limiting  hos- 
tilities some  form  of  international  sanction  should  be  devised 
which  would  give  pause  to  the  hardiest  aggressor. — Letter  from 
Foreign  Secretary  Balfour  to  Sir  Cecil  Spring-Rice,  dated  Lon- 
don, January  13,  1917. 

THE  FRENCH  GOVERNMENT 

The  Chamber  of  Deputies,  the  direct  expression  of  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  French  people,  expects  that  the  efforts  of  the  armies 
of  the  Republic  and  her  allies  will  secure,  once  Prussian  mili- 
tarism is  destroyed,  durable  guarantees  for  peace  and  in- 
dependence for  peoples  great  and  small,  in  a  league  of  nations 
such  as  has  already  been  foreshadowed. — From  a  resolution 
adopted  by  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  and  approved  by  the  Senate, 
dated  Paris,  June  4  and  June  6,  1917. 

The  working  basis  of  the  committee  appointed  by  the  French 
Government  to  draft  a  plan  for  a  League  of  Nations  is  outlined 
in  an  official  report  recently  received  at  League  Headquarters.  A 
significant  feature  of  this  report  is  the  declaration  of  belief  that 
"whatever  the  definition  on  which  they  (the  Allies)  may  agree 
as  to  the  juridical  rules  which  must  control  in  a  new  Europe  re- 
specting the  functioning  of  the  Society  of  Nations,  it  is  scarcely 
probable  that  the  Central  Empires  will  accept  them  unless  forced 
to  do  so."  The  report  proceeds : 

"In  so  far  as  the  treaty  of  peace  shall  not  submit  the  relations 
of  peoples  among  themselves  to  special  guaranties  of  law,  they 
will  continue,  as  they  are  to-day,  to  be  ruled  solely  by  the  right 
of  the  strongest.  Force  alone  can  therefore  create  the  new 
regime  and  establish  the  rules  of  justice  and  the  sanctions  of 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  63 

law  without  which  no  sincere  and  durable  peace  could  be  founded 
or  maintained.  So,  while  discussing  among  themselves  the  con- 
ditions of  the  future  Society  of  Nations,  the  Allied  Powers  can 
never  forget  that  if  it  is  to  exist  some  day,  this  can  only  result 
from  the  victory  of  their  arms." 

"It  is  necessarily  desirable,"  the  report  says,  "that  the  same 
work  of  preparation  should  be  done  in  the  other  countries  of  the 
Entente.  Thus,  when  the  Allies  shall  have  determined  by  com- 
mon agreement  their  views  on  this  important  subject,  they  will 
be  in  a  position  to  advance  it  with  full  understanding  when  it 
shall  be  brought  forward  in  the  negotiations  for  the  treaty  of 
peace." — The  League  Bulletin,  October  12,  1918. 

THE  RUSSIAN  GOVERNMENT 

Russia  has  always  been  in  full  sympathy  with  the  broad,  hu- 
manitarian principles  expressed  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States.  His  message  to  the  Senate,  therefore,  has  made  a  most 
favorable  impression  upon  the  Russian  Government.  Russia  will 
welcome  all  suitable  measures  which  will  help  prevent  a  recur- 
rence of  the  world  war.  Accordingly  we  can  gladly  indorse 
President  Wilson's  communication — From  a  statement  given  out 
by  the  Foreign  Office  to  the  Associated  Press,  dated  Petrograd, 
January  26,  1917. 

THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SWITZERLAND 

It  is  with  very  great  interest  that  we  have  taken  note  of  the 
programme  of  your  humanitarian  movement.  In  asking  us  to 
associate  ourselves  in  it  you  have  given  us  a  new  proof  of  the 
sympathy  of  the  United  States  for  Switzerland  and  we  desire  to 
say  to  you  how  much  we  appreciate  it.  The  League  to  Enforce 
Peace,  which  counts  among  its  members  so  many  eminent  per- 
sonalities, aims  to  insure  the  maintenance  of  peace  after  it  shall 
have  been  concluded ;  truly  a  delicate  mission,  but  the  difficulties 
of  which  are  not  to  be  allowed  to  discourage  your  efforts.  You 
regard  as  one  of  the  most  efficacious  means  to  that  end  a  treaty 
of  arbitration  conceived  in  the  same  spirit  as  the  treaty  of  Feb- 
ruary 13,  1914,  between  Switzerland  and  the  United  States,  a 
treaty  which  all  the  countries  are  to  sign  and  by  which  they 
will  undertake  to  submit  to  the  decision  of  a  supreme  international 
tribunal  the  conflicts  which  may  arise  between  them  in  order  to 


64  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

avoid,  as  far  as  possible,  a  return  of  the  catastrophe  which  desolates 
the  world  to-day.  Switzerland  is  so  much  the  better  placed  to  appre- 
ciate the  work  of  which  the  United  States  has  undertaken  the 
initiative,  because,  surrounded  on  all  sides  by  war,  peopled  by 
the  race  and  inheriting  the  language  and  the  culture  of  three 
among  the  combatant  nations,  she  is  better  able  than  any  other 
country  to  realize  the  fact  that  war  is  inhuman,  and  is  contrary 
to  the  superior  interest  of  civilization  which  is  the  common  patri- 
mony of  all  men.  If,  then,  at  the  conclusion  of  peace,  the  occa- 
sion should  present  itself  for  us  to  unite  our  efforts  to  yours,  we 
will  not  fail  to  do  so,  and  we  will  be  happy  to  make  our  con- 
tribution toward  rendering  peace  more  secure  when  reestab- 
lished.— From  a  letter  written  by  Dr.  Arthur  Hoffman  as  head  of 
the  Political  Department  of  the  Division  of  Foreign  Affairs,  to 
the  Hon.  Theodore  Marburg,  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Organization  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  dated 
Berne,  December  n,  1916. 

THE  SPANISH  GOVERNMENT 

His  Majesty's  Government  is  following  with  keen  sympathy 
the  idea  of  establishing,  after  the  end  of  the  present  war,  an  in- 
ternational league  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the  peace  of  the 
world  being  again  disturbed,  and  when  the  opportunity  of  doing 
so  arrives,  with  a  guarantee  of  success,  will  lend  its  concourse 
to  the  realization  of  such  a  humanitarian  and  lofty  project. — 
A  cablegram  from  Don  Amalio  Gimeno,  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  to  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  dated  Madrid,  January 
13,  1917- 

NOTE  :  Viscount  Motono,  Japanese  Minister  for  Foreign  Af- 
fairs (January  15,  1917)  and  Viscount  Ishii,  Japanese  Ambas- 
sador Extraordinary  to  the  United  States  (August  30,  1917)  have 
expressed  themselves  as  in  sympathy  with  the  movement  for  a 
League  of  Nations. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  65 

MEN  AND  ORGANIZATIONS  ENDORSE  A 
LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS 

VISCOUNT  GREY*  OF   FALLODEN,   FORMER   FOREIGN    SECRETARY  OF 

GREAT  BRITAIN 

I  sincerely  desire  to  see  a  league  of  nations  formed  and  made 
effective  to  secure  the  future  peace  of  the  world  after  this  war 
is  over.  I  regard  this  as  the  best,  if  not  the  only,  prospect  of 
preserving  treaties  and  of  saving  the  world  from  aggressive  wars 
in  years  to  come. — Cablegram  to  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace, 
November  24,  1916. 

The  establishment  and  maintainance  of  a  league  of  nations 
such  as  President  Wilson  had  advocated  is  more  important  and 
essential  to  secure  peace  than  any  of  the  actual  terms  of  peace 
that  may  conclude  the  war.  It  will  transcend  them  all.  The 
best  of  them  will  be  worth  little  unless  the  future  relations  of 
states  are  to  be  on  a  basis  that  will  prevent  a  recurrence  of 
militarism  in  any  state. — "A  League  of  Nations."  Pamphlet  pub- 
lished by  the  University  Press,  Oxford. 

DAVID  LLOYD  GEORGE,  PREMIER  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN 

As  society  is  banded  together  for  the  punishment  and  repres- 
sion of  murder,  theft,  fraud,  and  all  kinds  of  wrong  and  injus- 
tice inflicted  by  one  individual  upon  another,  so  nations  shall  be 
banded  together  for  the  protection  of  each  other  and  the  world 
as  a  whole  against  the  force,  fraud  and  greed  of  the  mighty.  To 
falter  ere  all  this  be  achieved  would  be  to  doubt  the  justice  of 
the  ruler  of  the  world.  To  carry  the  war  on  a  single  hour  after 
these  aims  can  be  attained  would  be  to  abandon  the  world  to  the 
spirit  of  evil. — Address  to  the  National  Council  of  Evangelical 
Free  Churches. 

A  large  number  of  small  nations  have  been  reborn  in  Europe, 
and  these  will  require  a  league  of  nations  to  protect  them  against 
the  covetousness  of  ambitious  and  grasping  neighbors.  In  my 
judgment,  a  league  of  nations  is  absolutely  essential  to  perma- 
nent peace. 

We  shall  go  to  the  peace  conference  to  guarantee  that  a 
league  of  nations  is  a  reality.  I  am  one  of  those  who  believe 


66  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

that  without  peace  we  cannot  have  progress.  A  league  of  na- 
tions guarantees  peace  and  guarantees  also  an  all-round  reduction 
of  armaments,  and  that  reduction  of  armaments  is  a  guarantee 
that  you  can  get  rid  of  conscription  here. 

Of  course,  we  must  have  in  this  country  an  efficient  army  to 
police  the  Empire,  but  I  am  looking  forward  to  a  condition  of 
things,  with  the  existence  of  a  league  of  nations,  under  which 
conscription  will  not  be  necessary  in  any  country.— A ddress  to  his 
Liberal  Supporters,  November  II,  1918. 
HERBERT  ASQUITH,  Ex -PREMIER  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN 

We  are  bound,  and  not  only  bound,  but  glad,  to  give  respect- 
ful attention  to  such  pronouncements  as  the  recent  speech  of ... 
President  Wilson.  That  speech  was  addressed  ...  to  the  Ameri- 
can Senate,  and  through  them  to  the  people  of  the  United  States. 
It  was,  therefore,  a  declaration  of  American  policy,  or,  to  speak 
more  precisely,  of  American  ideals.  The  President  held  out  to 
his  hearers  the  prospect  of  an  era  when  the  civilization  of  man- 
kind, banded  together  for  the  purpose,  will  make  it  their  joint 
and  several  duty  to  repress  by  their  united  authority,  and  if  need 
be  by  their  combined  naval  and  military  forces,  any  wanton  or 
aggressive  invasion  of  the  peace  of  the  world.  It  is  a  fine  ideal, 
which  must  arouse  all  our  sympathies. — Speech  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  February  i,  1917. 

Mr.  Asquith's  endorsement  of  a  league  of  nations,  in  his 
speech  before  the  National  Liberal  Club  on  July  10,  was  un- 
equivocal. "There  can  be  no  clean  peace,"  he  declared,  "which 
does  not  clear  away  the  cause  of  war.  "We  should  realize,"  he 
continued,  "and  act  as  though  we  realize,  that  a  league  of  na- 
tions is  neither  a  vague  political  abstraction  nor  an  empty  rhetor- 
ical formula,  but  a  concrete  and  definite  idea,  and  that  its 
embodiment  in  practical  shape  is  by  far  the  most  urgent  con- 
structive problem  of  international  statesmanship." 

That  Mr.  Asquith,  in  his  address,  was  speaking  for  his  party 
as  well  as  for  himself,  is  further  evident  from  the  resolutions 
adopted  by  a  representative  conference  of  the  Liberal  party, 
held  at  the  House  of  Commons  on  the  very  day,  as  it  happened, 
of  Mr.  Asquith's  speech.  The  conference,  called  to  consider  the 
political  situation,  adopted  three  resolutions  intended  to  serve  as 
a  party  platform.  The  first  committed  the  party  to  the  support 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  67 

of  a  league  of  nations.  Whether  or  not  Mr.  Asquith  himself  in- 
spired the  resolution  is  of  little  consequence.  What  matters  is 
that,  when  he  spoke,  he  did  so  with  the  knowledge  that  the  party 
was  behind  him.  The  other  two  planks  in  the  conference  plat- 
form are  hardly  less  important.  One,  as  summarized  in  a  press 
dispatch,  calls  for  "control  by  Parliament  of  the  foreign  policy 
and  ratification  of  treaties."  The  other  demands  "full  restoration 
of  free  speech,  free  press,  and  rights  of  civil  trial."  On  these 
foundations,  joined  to  that  of  a  league  of  nations,  the  Liberal 
party  has  now  taken  its  stand. — Nation,  July  20,  1918.  p.  58. 

ARTHUR  JAMES  BALFOUR,  FOREIGN  SECRETARY  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN 

This  is  no  knight-errant  business,  in  which  men,  doubtless  of 
high  ideals,  set  forth  on  some  distant  quest  looking  out  for 
wrongs  to  remedy,  for  fair  ladies  to  release,  with  all  the  other 
romantic  objects  of  medieval  chivalry.  This  is  a  hard,  practical 
necessity,  and  it  requires  indeed  imagination  to  grasp  it.  It  re- 
quires something  more  than  a  merely  parochial  outlook  to  see  our 
highest  interests,  but  our  highest  moral  and  national  interests,  our 
noblest  aspirations,  are  bound  up  with  the  fate  of  countries  whose 
language  we  can  not  speak  and  with  whose  history,  I  dare  say,  a 
good  many  of  us  here  are  very  imperfectely  acquainted.  Slowly, 
indeed,  has  the  lesson  been  driven  in,  but  it  has  been  driven 
into  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  this  people  in  a  manner  they 
will  never  forget,  that  we  can  not  think  merely  within  our  own 
shores,  of  our  own  liberties,  of  our  own  developments,  but  that 
modern  civilized  nations  are  so  interconnected,  their  common  in- 
terests are  so  great,  that  unless  they  will  exercise  some  coercion 
over  their  unruly  or  criminal  members,  the  very  fabric  of  civiliza- 
tion may  be  shattered. 

I  am  not  going  to  discuss  now  whether  the  League  of  Nations 
has  reached  the  stage  of  being  a  practical  ideal.  I  myself  admit 
the  immense  difficulties  which  lie  in  the  way  of  that  constructive 
statesmanship  which  will  indeed  make  it  a  working,  effective  in- 
strument, but  while  I  recognize  the  difficulties  I  think  it  mean  and 
cowardly  to  shrink  from  them,  and  I  hope  the  civilized  world 
will  take  that  great  problem  seriously  in  hand  and  see  it  through. 
— Recent  Speech  at  Edinburgh.  Reprinted  from  the  Literary 
Digest.  56:13.  February  2,  1918. 


68  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

ANDREW  BONAR  LAW,  BRITISH  CHANCELLOR  OF  THE  EXCHEQUER 

President  Wilson's  aim  is  to  have  peace  now  and  security  for 
peace  in  the  future.  That  is  our  aim  also  and  it  is  our  only  aim. 
He  hopes  to  secure  this  by  a  league  of  peace,  and  he  not  only 
spoke  in  favor  of  such  a  league  but  he  is  trying  to  induce  the 
American  Senate  to  take  the  steps  necessary  to  give  effect  to  it. 
It  would  not  be  right  to  look  upon  the  question  as  altogether 
Utopian.  You  know  that  only  quite  recently,  almost  up  to  our 
own  time,  duelling  was  common,  and  now  the  idea  that  private 
quarrels  should  be  settled  by  the  sword  has  become  unthinkable. 
I  think  it  is  not  impossible — I  hope  it  may  prove  possible — that 
the  time  may  come  when  the  nations  of  the  world  will  look  upon 
what  Cromwell  described  as  his  great  work  as  their  work  too — 
that  of  being  a  constable  to  preserve  peace  in  the  parish.— Speech 
at  Bristol,  January  24,  1917. 

LORD  LANSDOWNE,  EX-FOREIGN  MINISTER  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN 

How  are  we  going  to  get  a  durable  peace?  To  my  mind, 
there  is  only  one  way  of  getting  it,  and  that  is  by  bringing  about 
a  combination  of  the  Great  Powers.  ...  I  mean  a  combina- 
tion of  all  the  Powers,  under  which  they  will  hold  themselves 
bound  to  refer  international  disputes  to  some  kind  of  interna- 
tional tribunal,  and  under  which  they  will  bind  themselves  .  .  . 
to  use  coercion  against  any  criminal  or  unruly  members  of  the 
combination. 

GENERAL  JAN  C.  SMUTS 

When  the  great  American  Republic  joined  us  in  the  strug- 
gle, it  was  not  only  with  material  weapons,  but  with  all  that 
moral  reinforcement  which  came  from  the  splendid  vision  and 
moral  enthusiasm  of  President  Wilson,  speaking  on  behalf  of  the 
people  of  the  United  States.  His  was  the  great  vision  of  a 
League  of  Nations,  and  our  main  concern  now  must  be  the  saving 
of  Europe  for  the  future  of  the  world.  As  we  organized  the 
world  for  victory,  let  us  now  organize  the  world  against  hunger. 
That  will  be  the  best  preparation  for  the  new  order  of  inter- 
national good  feeling  and  co-operation. — Address  to  Party  of 
American  Editors,  London,  November  14,  1918. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  69 

LORD   NORTHCLIFFE,  BRITISH   EDITOR,   HEAD  OF  THE  AMERICAN 

MISSION 

A  close  federation  of  the  nations  now  fighting  the  good  fight 
will  be  the  only  insurance  against  the  autocracy  that  made  this 
war  possible  and  the  horrors  that  the  armies  of  the  autocrat 
perpetrated  on  innocent  non-combatants.  The  word  must  be 
made  for  democracy. — Address  before  the  Players'  Club,  New 
York  City,  June  28,  1917. 

ARCHBISHOP  OF  CANTERBURY 

I  can  speak  for  no  government,  but  I  am  convinced  that  the 
mass  of  thoughtful  Christian  folks  in  England  feel  with  an  earn- 
estness beyond  words  the  force  of  President  Wilson's  contention, 
that  for  reasons  not  of  policy  but  of  principle,  not  of  national  in- 
terest but  of  righteousness  and  justice  and  enduring  peace,  we 
want  a  League  of  Nations  on  the  very  lines  he  has  drawn." — 
Letter  to  the  London  Times. 

M.  ALEXANDRE  RTBOT,  FORMER  PREMIER  OF  FRANCE 

It  is  necessary  that  a  League  of  Peace  be  founded  in  the  same 
spirit  of  democracy  that  France  has  had  the  honor  of  introduc- 
ing into  the  world.  The  nations  now  in  arms  will  constitute  the 
Society  of  Nations.  This  is  the  future  of  humanity,  or  one  might 
well  despair  of  the  future.  President  Wilson  upon  this  point  is 
with  us.  All  nations  not  predatory  must  unite  to  prevent  others 
from  disturbing  the  peace.  They  must  unite  in  an  armed  league 
to  make  respected  throughout  the  world,  peace,  justice  and  lib- 
erty.—Address  to  the  French  Senate,  June  6,  1917. 

M.  RENE  VIVIANI,  HEAD  OF  THE  FRENCH  MISSION  TO  THE  UNITED 
STATES 

Your  flag  bears  forty-eight  stars,  representing  forty-eight 
states.  Each  state  has  its  own  legislature,  but  all  are  subject  to 
Federal  laws  that  were  made  for  all.  May  we  not  hope  for 
the  day  when  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  will  be  united  as  are 
your  states,  under  certain  broad  and  general  restrictions  that  will 
make  it  forever  impossible  for  some  mad  autocrat  to  play  havoc 
with  the  universe.— Speech  at  the  Boston  Public  Library,  May  13, 
1917. 


70  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

SR.  AUGUSTO  CIUFFELLI,  MEMBER  OF  THE  ITALIAN  WAR  MISSION 

This  must  be  the  last  war.  Nations  cannot  in  the  future 
squander  all  their  money  on  military  preparedness.  The  new  spirit 
must  make  us  live  together  in  the  ideals  of  peace  and  justice. 
Italy  is  eager  to  take  her  place  in  a  new  world  organized  for 
peace. — Statement  to  the  press,  June  i,  1917. 

GEORG  FRIEDRICH   VON   HERTLING,   FORMER   CHANCELLOR  OF  THE 
GERMAN  EMPIRE 

XIV. — The  last  point,  the  I4th,  deals  with  a  league  of  nations. 
Regarding  this  point,  I  am  sympathetically  disposed,  as  my 
political  activity  shows,  toward  every  idea  which  eliminates  for 
the  future  a  possibility  or  a  probability  of  war,  and  will  pro- 
mote a  peaceful  and  harmonious  collaboration  of  nations.  If  the 
idea  of  a  league  of  nations,  as  suggested  by  President  Wilson, 
proves  on  closer  examination  really  to  be  conceived  in  a  spirit  of 
complete  justice  and  complete  impartiality  toward  all,  then  the 
Imperial  Government  is  gladly  ready,  when  all  other  pending 
questions  have  been  settled,  to  begin  the  examination  of  the  basis 
of  such  a  league  of  nations. — Reply,  before  the  Main  Committee 
of  the  Reichstag,  to  President  Wilson's  address  of  January  8, 
1918. 

BERNHARD  DERNBURG,  EX-COLONIAL  SECRETARY  OF  THE  GERMAN 

EMPIRE 

The  situation  at  large  demands  international  distribution 
.  .  .  secured  by  international  agreements  which  bind  the  states 
and  do  not  leave  a  free  hand  to  the  individual — that  is  to  say, 
there  must  be  a  league  of  nations  for  the  universal  world  supply 
of  a  humanity  destitute  of  raw  materials. 

His  HOLINESS  POPE  BENEDICT 

We  now  wish  to  make  a  more  concrete  and  practical  proposal 
and  to  invite  the  governments  of  the  belligerents  to  come  to  an 
agreement  upon  the  following  points  which  seem  to  be  a  basis  of 
a  just  and  durable  peace,  leaving  to  them  the  task  of  analyzing 
and  completing  them. 

First  of  all,  the  fundamental  point  must  be  that  the  material 
force  of  arms  be  substituted  by  the  moral  force  of  right,  from 
which  shall  arise  a  fair  agreement  by  all  for  the  simultaneous 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  71 

and  reciprocal  diminution  of  armaments,  according  to  the  rules 
and  guarantees  to  be  established,  in  a  measure  necessary  and  suf- 
ficient for  the  maintenance  of  public  order  in  each  state. 

Then  in  the  substitution  for  armies  of  the  institution  of  arbi- 
tration with  its  high  pacifying  function,  according  to  the  rules  to 
be  laid  down  and  the  penalties  to  be  imposed  on  a  state  which 
would  refuse  either  to  submit  a  national  question  to  arbitration 
or  to  accept  its  decision. — Message  to  the  belligerent  govern- 
ments, August  i,  1917. 

CENTRAL  ORGANIZATION  FOR  A  DURABLE  PEACE 

The  work  of  the  Hague  Conferences  with  a  view  to  the  peace- 
ful organization  of  the  Society  of  Nations  shall  be  developed.— 
From  the  program  of  an  international  gathering  called  by  the 
Dutch  Anti-War  Council,  at  The  Hague,  April  7-10,  1915. 

WOMAN'S  PEACE  PARTY 

That  the  Woman's  Peace  Party  shall  in  every  way  possible 
promote  a  public  demand  that  an  agreement  for  a  League  of 
Nations  shall  be  made  the  basis  of  the  war  settlement,  and  it 
hereby  petitions  the  Government  to  urge  as  speedily  as  possible 
upon  the  allied  governments  an  explicit  agreement  to  this  end, 
that  all  nations  on  the  earth  may  know  that  they  will  be  assured 
mutual  protection  and  economic  equality  upon  the  complete 
establishment  of  such  a  league. — Resolutions  adopted  at  the  Third 
Annual  Meeting,  Philadelphia,  December  6-7,  1917. 

NEUTRAL  CONFERENCE  FOR  CONTINUOUS  MEDIATION 

Far  more  important,  however,  for  the  welfare  of  humanity 
than  the  solutions  thus  far  suggested  is  the  creation  of  an  in- 
ternational organization,  founded  upon  law  and  justice,  which 
would  include  an  agreement  to  submit  all  disputes  between  states 
for  peaceful  settlement.  Hence  the  almost  universal  opinion  that 
in  the  coming  treaty  of  peace,  the  principle  of  such  an  inter- 
national order  of  justice  must  be  accepted. — From  the  Statement 
issued  by  the  Conference,  in  session  at  Stockholm,  on  the  initia- 
tive of  Henry  Ford,  Easter,  1916. 

UNION  FOR  DEMOCRATIC  CONTROL 

The  foundation  of  all  future  hopes  of  permanent  peace  lies  in 
the  establishment  of  a  League  of  Nations.  .  .  .  Our  first  task  is 


72  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

to  convince  the  masses  of  every  country  that  in  a  League  of 
Nations  they  may  find  a  means  of  defense  which  renders  their 
old  militarism  unnecessary. — Peace  Program  of  the  Union. 

INTERNATIONAL  COMMITTEE  OF  WOMEN  FOR  PERMANENT  PEACE 

The  Peace  Settlement  Conference  should  provide  for  ...  a 
concert  or  league  of  nations  open  to  all  states. — From  Program 
prepared  by  the  American  Section  for  presentation  to  the  pro- 
posed After-the-War  Congress  of  the  Committee. 

OPPRESSED  NATIONS  OF  MIDDLE  EUROPE 

That  there  should  be  formed  a  league  of  the  nations  of  the 
world  in  a  common  and  binding  agreement  for  genuine  and  prac- 
tical co-operation  to  secure  justice  and  therefore  peace  among 
nations. — From  the  "Declaration  of  Independence"  adopted  at  /«- 
dependence  Hall,  Philadelphia,  October  26,  1918. 

INTER-ALLIED  LABOR  AND  SOCIALIST  CONFERENCE,  FEBRUARY  22, 

1918 

Whoever  triumphs,  the  peoples  will  have  lost  unless  an  inter- 
national system  is  established  which  will  prevent  war.  What 
would  it  mean  to  declare  the  right  of  peoples  to  self-determina- 
tion if  this  right  were  left  at  the  mercy  of  new  violations,  and 
was  not  protected  by  a  supernational  authority?  That  authority 
can  be  no  other  than  the  League  of  Nations,  in  which  not  only 
all  the  present  belligerents,  but  every  other  independent  state, 
should  be  pressed  to  join. — Memorandum  on  War  Aims  adopted 
by  the  Conference. 

SOCIAL  DEMOCRATIC  LEAGUE  OF  AMERICA  AND  THE  JEWISH  SOCIAL- 
IST LEAGUE 

We  approve  the  peace  terms  adopted  by  the  Inter-Allied  So- 
cialist and  Labor  Conferences. — Joint  Manifesto. 

INTER- ALLIED  PARLIAMENTARY  COMMITTEE 

LONDON,  Oct.  29,  (British  Wireless  Service.)— Resolutions 
unanimously  passed  at  the  recent  conference  of  the  French, 
Italian,  Belgian,  and  British  sections  of  the  Inter-Allied  Parlia- 
mentary Committee  recommended  that  the  nations  now  united 
in  the  fight  for  liberty  should  maintain  their  close  association  until 
the  dangers  threatening  them  had  been  removed  by  the  complete 
overthrow  of  the  enemy  powers. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  73 

Another  resolution  said  that  it  was  of  paramount  importance 
that  the  governments  of  the  allied  nations  should  forthwith  pro- 
ceed to  prepare  in  consultation  a  scheme  for  the  establishment 
after  the  war  of  machinery  designed  to  secure  and  develop  a 
"Society  of  Nations"  as  a  proper  means  for  attaining  a  durable 
peace  guarded  by  the  joint  action  of  free  nations. — New  York 
Times,  October  30,  1918. 

ASSOCIATED  ADVERTISING  CLUBS  OF  THE  WORLD 

A  telegram  promising  the  support  of  the  Associated  Advertis- 
ing Clubs  of  the  World  to  the  proposal  for  a  League  of  Nations 
after  the  war  was  sent  to  President  Wilson  yesterday  by  the 
Executive  Committee  of  the  association.  After  reviewing  the 
President's  proposal  the  telegram  adds: 

"This  League  of  Nations  would  be  an  essential  agency  of 
plan  and  progress  in  the  era  of  reconstruction  on  which  this 
world  is  entering." — New  York  Times,  November  17,  1918. 

EARL  CURZON'S  PROPOSAL  IN  PARLIAMENT 

The  House  of  Lords  on  June  26,  1918,  discussed  the  proposed 
plans  of  a  league  of  nations  after  the  war.  Viscount  Bryce 
urged  the  Government  to  open  an  inquiry  into  the  subject  and  to 
let  the  world  know  that  it  was  doing  so. 

Earl  Curzon  of  Kedleston,  Government  leader  in  the  House 
of  Lords,  agreed  with  Viscount  Bryce  that  there  was  no  reason 
why,  without  waiting  for  the  termination  of  the  war,  the  Gov- 
ernment should  not  discuss  the  proposal  for  a  league  of  nations, 
which,  he  said,  ought  to  be  called  into  existence  immediately  after 
the  war  ended.  To  a  large  extent,  he  said,  leagues  of  nations 
existed  already,  as,  for  instance,  the  league  of  the  British  Empire 
and  the  league  of  over  twenty  nations  allied  to  resist  German 
militarism.  There  was  also  in  existence  in  Paris  machinery  rep- 
resenting Great  Britain,  France,  Italy,  and  the  United  States  for 
unity  in  naval,  military,  and  economic  matters. — New  York  Times 
Current  History,  August,  1918.  p.  352. 

SUMMON  CHRISTIANS  TO  LEAGUE  OF  PEACE 

LONDON,  Feb.  22,  (Delayed).— The  following  appeal  has  been 
issued  over  the  signatures  of  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the 
Bishop  of  Winchester,  the  Bishop  of  Oxford,  the  Bishop  of 
Southwark,  the  Bishop  of  Peterborough,  the  Rev.  Dr.  James 


74  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Cooper,  Moderator  of  the  Established  Church  of  Scotland;  the 
Rev.  Dr.  W.  B.  Settle,  the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  Scott  Lidgett,  the  Rev. 
Dr.  F.  B.  Meyer,  the  Rev.  Dr.  D.  S.  Cairns,  the  Rev.  Dr.  J. 
Estlin  Carpenter,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Alexander  Connell,  the  Rev. 
Father  Plater,  Lord  Henry  Bentinck,  Lord  Parmoor,  the  Rt.  Hon. 
Arthur  Henderson,  George  Lansbury,  Arthur  Mansbridge,  Pro- 
fessor A.  S.  Peake,  and  Principal  T.  F.  Roberts : 

"We,  the  signatories  of  this  document,  belonging  to  various 
Christian  bodies,  have  noted  with  the  greatest  satisfaction  the 
prominent  place  given  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  and 
by  successive  Prime  Ministers  and  Foreign  Secretaries  of  our 
own  country  to  the  proposal  of  a  League  of  Nations.  The  idea 
has  also,  as  was  to  be  expected,  won  wide  support  among  the 
official  representatives  of  Christian  communions,  e.  g.,  in  the 
Pope's  appeal  to  the  powers  last  summer  and  in  the  recent  Convo- 
cation of  Canterbury. 

"But  more  is  yet  needed  to  make  manifest  and  effective  the 
full  force  of  Christian  conviction  in  its  favor,  still  largely  latent, 
but  capable  of  being  evoked  if  only  the  vital  import  of  the  idea 
be  brought  forcibly  home  to  Christian  people  at  large. 

"In  the  name,  then,  of  the  Prince  of  Peace,  we  would  call  on 
them  duly  to  consider  and  openly  to  welcome  the  idea  of  such  a 
league  as  shall  safeguard  international  right  and  permanent  peace 
and  shall  also  have  power  in  the  last  resort  to  constrain  by 
economic  pressure  or  armed  force  any  nation  refusing  to  submit 
to  arbitration  or  international  adjudication  in  the  first  instance 
any  dispute  with  another  tending  to  war. 

"We  believe  that  a  new  system  of  international  law  and  au- 
thority, acting  through  an  inclusive  League  of  Nations  in  place  of 
any  balance  of  power,  is  a  condition  of  a  just  and  lasting  peace, 
particularly  as  it  affords  means  whereby  the  fresh  demands  of 
national  life  as  they  arise  can  be  adjudicated  upon  and  equitably 
satisfied. 

"Accordingly,  we  hold  it  to  be  of  the  utmost  importance,  as 
President  Wilson  has  just  emphasized,  that  such  a  league  should 
not  merely  be  contemplated  as  a  more  or  less  remote  outcome  of 
a  future  settlement,  but  should  be  put  in  the  very  forefront  of  the 
peace  terms  as  their  presupposition  and  guarantee. 

"Whether  it  be  or  be  not  practicable,  without  any  slackening 
of  the  energy  with  which  the  war  must  be  waged,  to  make  a 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  75 

beginning  upon  the  league  as  regards  the  Allies  and  neutrals, 
even  before  the  peace  conference,  we  do  not  venture  to  decide, 
though  we  think  this  course  has  much  to  commend  it.  But  we 
are  sure  of  the  pressing  need  there  is  here  and  now  of  giving 
the  League  of  Nations  the  backing  of  an  organized  body  of 
strong  conviction;  sure,  also,  that  this  task  offers  to  the  Chris- 
tian consciousness  an  opportunity  to  make  its  own  spirit  felt  in 
national  policy  such  as  has  not  occurred  heretofore  since  the  out- 
break of  this  war." — New  York  Times,  February  24,  1918. 

FRANCE  AND  THE  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS 

Within  the  last  three  months  the  project  of  a  league  of  na- 
tions has  come  strikingly  to  the  front  in  French  Socialist  politics, 
stimulated  largely  by  the  adoption  by  the  special  committee  of  the 
French  Socialist  Party  of  the  proposals  in  the  Stockholm  mani- 
festo. In  the  manifesto  the  league  of  nations  is  regarded  as  the 
only  permanent  guarantee  of  peace ;  it  maintains  that  the  particu- 
lar problems  of  the  settlement  must  be  dealt  with  in  accordance 
with  the  ideas  of  public  right  which  the  league  will  uphold.  The 
league  itself  must  be  such  an  integral  part  of  settlement  that  its 
formation  cannot  possibly  be  left  until  after  the  war. 

The  French  Socialists,  when  formulating  the  terms  upon  which 
they  were  prepared  to  enter  the  projected  Ribot  and  actual  Pain- 
leve  governments,  urged  that  it  would  be  well  for  the  allied  gov- 
ernments to  establish  between  themselves,  without  delay,  a  sys- 
tem of  arbitration,  with  published  treaties,  which  would  per- 
manently ensure  the  equitable  settlement  of  disputes  between 
them.  The  French  Socialists  have  also  demanded  that  the  league 
shall  be  based  "upon  the  faith"  of  all  the  peoples  involved,  and 
have  formulated  certain  practical  proposals  for  the  establishment 
of  this  condition.  They  propose  that  the  admittance  of  any 
nation  into  the  league  shall  be  conditioned  by  the  sanction  of  the 
national  parliaments. 

On  September  19,  M.  Lemery,  in  an  address  to  the  French 
Government,  declared  that  the  question  of  the  establishment  of 
the  league  of  nations  was  no  longer  merely  an  academic  one. 
The  league  was  already  in  existence,  but  it  should  be  provided 
with  machinery;  the  legal  and  political  principles  and  the 
economic  constitution  of  the  league  should  be  defined.  To  this 
M.  Painleve  answered,  that  the  government  was  convinced  that 


76  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

it  would  be  able  to  carry  through  the  project  of  forming  a  league 
of  nations ;  but  he  added  that  the  solution  did  not  rest  with  them 
alone.  The  formation  of  the  league  depended  largely  on  Eng- 
land's willingness  to  co-operate. 

The  idea  of  the  league  has  been  widely  discussed  in  the  French 
press,  notably  in  an  article  in  L'Oeuvre,  which  insists  that  uni- 
versal peace  can  only  be  led  up  to  and  brought  into  being  and 
guaranteed  by  the  league  of  nations.  The  Petit  Parisien  has 
lately  published  a  striking  article  by  M.  Jules  Destree,  Belgian 
Ambassador  in  Petrograd,  urging  the  immediate  establishment  of 
the  league.  He  contends  that  each  nation's  war  program  will 
extend  mathematically,  or  contract,  according  to  the  chances  of 
the  league  becoming  good  or  bad. 

The  organizing  committee  of  the  Stockholm  Conference  in 
the  manifesto  just  issued,  outlining  the  general  conditions  of 
peace,  states  that  in  order  to  give  peace  a  durable  character,  the 
contracting  parties  are  to  declare  themselves  ready  to  create  a 
society  of  nations  on  a  basis  of  compulsory  arbitration  and  gen- 
eral disarmament.  The  Nationalist  Congress  of  the  Socialist 
Party  at  Bordeaux  has  passed  a  resolution  declaring  that  although 
the  French  Government  has  made  satisfactory  declaration  on 
war  aims,  and  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  has  proclaimed  at  public 
sessions  its  intention  to  prepare  the  society  of  nations  and  re- 
ject all  tendency  towards  conquest  and  annexation,  all  the  Allies 
have  not  done  the  same  thing  to  the  same  extent.  The  resolution 
declares  it  is  therefore  necessary  that  the  Government  of  France, 
profiting  by  the  initiative  of  the  Russian  Revolution,  shall  obtain 
from  the  Allies  a  common  declaration  that  will  make  inter- 
national rights  the  sole  basis  of  the  national  claims  of  each  of 
them. 

In  the  draft  of  the  new  constitution  drawn  up  by  the  Labor 
Party  in  this  country,  the  objects  of  the  party  under  the  inter- 
national heading  are  defined  as  follows:  "To  co-operate  with 
the  labor  organizations  in  other  countries,  and  to  assist  in  organ- 
izing a  federation  of  nations  for  the  maintenance  of  freedom  and 
peace,  and  for  the  establishment  of  suitable  machinery  for  the 
adjustment  and  settlement  of  international  disputes  by  con- 
ciliation or  judicial  arbitration,  and  for  such  international  legisla- 
tion as  may  be  practicable." — Advocate  of  Peace,  January,  1918. 

p.  21. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  77 

PAN-AMERICAN  LABOR  CONFERENCE 

We  declare  that  the  following  essential  fundamental  principles 
must  underlie  the  peace  as  well  as  the  principles  of  all  civilized 
nations :  a  league  of  the  free  peoples  of  the  world  in  a  common 
covenant  for  genuine  and  practical  cooperation  to  secure  justice 
and  therefore  peace  in  relations  between  nations. — From  the 
Resolutions  adopted  at  Laredo,  Texas,  November  13,  1918. 

SWEDISH  PLANS  FOR  INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATION  were  given 
expression  at  the  Scandinavian  Inter-Parliamentary  Conference 
in  Stockholm  in  September.  These  provide  for  (i)  the  establish- 
ment of  a  league  comprising  all  of  the  nations  of  the  world ;  (2) 
mutual  engagements  between  the  States  to  submit  every  dispute 
which  cannot  be  diplomatically  settled  and  is  of  a  judicial  nature 
to  the  arbitration  either  of  the  existing  Hague  Court  or  a 
specially  designated  body;  (3)  an  international  committee  of 
investigation  with  power  to  treat  all  questions  other  than  these, 
the  while  all  countries  concerned  agree  to  wait  peaceably  on  its 
decision,  and  (4)  a  permanent  international  council  as  the  cen- 
tralizing organ  of  the  various  international  committees. 

Swiss  INTEREST  IN  A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS,  declared  President 
Calender  not  long  ago,  was  of  a  fundamental  character,  due  to 
the  fact  that  Switzerland  itself  was  but  a  federation  of  peoples 
of  four  different  languages  and  cultures,  yet  bound  fast  with  a 
strong  sentiment  of  mutual  interest  and  common  nationality.  In 
his  speech  before  the  Swiss  National  Council,  in  which  he  made 
clear  Swiss  attitude  of  high  approbation  of  the  League  of  Na- 
tions' idea,  Dr.  Calender  quoted  the  motto  given  Switzerland  by 
her  great  writer  Gottfried  Keller  as  the  heart  and  soul  of  all  in- 
ternational unity:  "Friendship  in  freedom."  He  referred  to  the 
political  life  of  his  country  as  a  veritable  preliminary  to  a 
League  of  Nations.  In  this  respect,  too,  Switzerland  has  an  in- 
ternational mission  that  is  unmistakable :  "To  further  peace  and 
friendship  among  all  peoples  and  to  prove  to  the  world  by  her 
example  that  different  races  and  people  of  a  different  tongue 
could,  on  the  basis  of  mutual  esteem,  on  the  basis  of  freedom 
and  equality,  be  united  into  one  happy  community." 

A  GERMAN  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS,  not  necessarily  the  same 
thing  as  the  German  world  originally  planned,  is,  according  to 
Amsterdam  gossip  a  matter  of  serious  discussion  in  the  German 


78  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Foreign  Office,  in  which  the  collaboration  of  prominent  deputies 
and  jurists  has  been  permitted.  Proposals,  it  is  said,  have  al- 
ready been  drafted  which  in  the  main  harmonize  with  the 
Majority  PaYty's  general  program.  A  special  commission  has 
been  proposed  to  study  these  proposals  and  frame  a  complete 
draft  of  the  German  version  of  a  League  of  Nations. — Advocate 
of  Peace.  November,  1918.  p.  312. 


^ 


DISCUSSION 


THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  A  LASTING  PEACE1 

If  there  is  one  thought  and  purpose  which  has  been 
emphasised  above  all  others  in  the  announcements  and 
avowals  of  responsible  statesmen,  that  this  is  a  war  to  end 
war,  it  is  that  we  are  fighting  for  a  lasting  peace.  But  one 
thing  is  certain:  if  the  deep  underlying  causes  of  this  war  re- 
main at  its  conclusion,  if  after  all  the  expenditure  and  suf- 
fering the  nations  return  to  the  status  quo  ante,  then  the  war 
of  to-day  will  indeed  prove  to  be  but  the  drumfire  that  pre- 
pares the  way  for  the  great  drive  of  the  next  war.  But  this 
must  not  be.  The  treaty  of  peace  must  be  a  treaty  of  lasting 
peace.  What  kind  of  a  peace  will  last? 

A  peace  that  will  last  must  be  a  general  peace.  The  rea- 
son for  this  is  obvious.  It  is  because  the  principles  of  a  last- 
ing peace  among  nations  are  universal  principles.  It  is 
because  compromise  would  be  surrender.  The  democratic 
nations  are  determined  to  discredit  the  doctrine  that  might 
makes  right. 

A  peace  that  will  last  must  be  a  genuine  peace.  It  must 
not  be  a  patched-up  peace,  a  temporary  truce  based  on  ex- 
pediency; if  it  is  to  be  permanent,  it  must  be  founded  on  justice 
and  the  principles  of  public  right.  It  must  not  be  a  fraudu- 
lent peace,  a  hypocritical  peace.  It  must  be  democratic  for 
the  reason — as  President  Wilson  has  pointed  out — that  "only 
free  peoples  can  hold  their  purpose  and  their  honor  steady  to 
a  common  end  and  prefer  the  interests  of  mankind  to  any 
narrow  interests  of  their  own." 

A  peace  that  will  last  must  be  a  generous  peace.  It  must 
be  a  peace  without  vengeance,  and  a  peace  without  vengeance 
is  a  very  different  thing  from  a  peace  without  victory.  It 
means  the  sort  of  peace  Lincoln  made  with  the  South — after 

1  By  Robert  Goldsmith,  author  of  "A  League  to  Enforce  Peace."  In 
The  Bookman  for  May,  1918. 


8o  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Lee's  surrender.  But  Lincoln  saw  with  unblurred  vision  that 
no  permanent  peace  was  possible  among  the  states  unless  and 
until  slavery  was  crushed.  It  is  not  otherwise  to-day. 
Wilson  sees^now,  whether  or  not  he  saw  at  once,  that  there 
can  be  no  lasting  peace  among  the  nations  until  the  Thing 
called  militarism  is  crushed  and  destroyed.  Nor  is  this  idea 
of  a  generous  peace  some  vague  hope  of  impractical  idealism; 
it  is,  on  the  contrary  sound  political  philosophy.  History 
has  demonstrated  repeatedly"  that  the  other  kind  of  peace 
does  not  and  cannot  last. 

A  peace  that  will  last  must  be  a  guaranteed  peace.  Very 
well;  but  how  is  peace  to  be  guaranteed?  The  answer  is  that 
the  structure  of  peace  must  be  founded  on  international 
covenants,  international  courts,  an  international  constabulary, 
and  international  co-operation.  Covenants,  courts,  a  con- 
stabulary, and  co-operation — these  are  the  four  cornerstones. 
A  covenanted  peace  is  a  peace  between  peoples.  The  old 
diplomacy  is  played  out.  Hereafter  no  treaty  can  be  held 
to  be  valid  or  binding  upon  the  population  of  a  country  un- 
less it  is  underwritten  by  the  people  of  the  country;  until  it 
is  endorsed  by  the  workers  and  the  women  through  their 
responsible  representatives  in  popularly  elected  parliaments. 
President  Wilson,  in  his  address  to  Congress  on  January  8th 
last,  makes  this  the  first  item  in  his  programme:  "Open 
covenants  of  peace,  openly  arrived  at,  after  which  there  shall 
be  no  private  understandings  of  any  kind,  but  diplomacy  shall 
proceed  always  frankly  and  in  the  public  view." 

Hitherto  the  towering  structure  of  society  has  been  based 
on  the  foundations  of  brute  force  alone.  But  the  trembling 
sills  and  girders  of  fear  and  force  can  no  longer  be  trusted 
to  bear  the  weight  and  stand  the  strain  of  modern  sky-scraper 
states.  New  underpinning  of  reason  and  justice  must  be  sub- 
stituted if  we  would  have  the  edifice  endure.  The  reason 
civilisation  has  collapsed  and  international  society  become  a 
heap  of  charred  and  smoking  ruins  to-day  is  because  the 
superstructure  has  been  raised  upon  such  rotten  timbers  and 
cross-beams  as  sinister  diplomacy  and  unconscionable  in- 
trigue. International  covenants  would  do  away  with  all  this 
and  plant  the  peace  of  the  world  on  firm  foundations. 

International  tribunals — courts  and  councils — would  need 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  81 

to  be  created,  or  resurrected,  if  reason  and  justice  are  to  be 
made  operative  in  international  relations.  The  covenant  against 
aggression  would  pledge  all  signatories  to  submit  to  public 
hearing  before  a  constituted  court  or  council  "all  disputes  of 
every  nature  whatsoever"  which  might  arise  between  them.  In 
all  probability  it  will  be  found  expedient  to  set  up  two  tribunals : 
a  Court  of  Justice  to  hear  and  decide  questions  that  can  be  de- 
termined by  the  established  and  acknowledged  rules  of  interna- 
tional law  and  equity,  and  a  Council  of  Conciliation  to  compose 
by  compromise  and  mutual  concession  all  other  vexed  questions 
that,  unless  peacably  settled,  would  be  likely  to  lead  to  war. 
Such  a  council,  it  is  believed,  would  discover  and  apply  ways 
for  changing  the  status  quo  without  resort  to  arms. 

War  is  the  ripened  fruit  of  lawlessness.  Society  has  slowly 
progressed  from  barbarism  to  civilisation  by  the  gradual  sub- 
stitution of  law  for  anarchy.  War,  which  is  direct  action,  may 
appear  to  be  the  shortest  distance  between  two  points.  As  a 
matter  of  fact  it  is  clumsy  as  well  as  cruel,  and  as  stupid  as  it 
is  horrible.  It  is  anachronistic  and  should  be  obsolescent. 
Problems  of  territorial  expansion  and  economic  opportunity 
should  be  thought  out  rather  than  fought  out,  because  howitzers 
and  machine  guns  do  not  always  speak  the  truth. 

Few  of  us  need  to  be  reminded  that  the  time  was  when  in- 
dividuals took  the  settlement  of  their  personal  grievances  in 
their  own  hands.  In  the  tenth  century  trial  by  battle  was  sanc- 
tioned by  the  state.  The  disputants  went  to  the  public  field  and 
fought  it  out.  The  judge  had  to  adjourn  court  and  render  a 
verdict  in  favour  of  the  winner.  Men  no  longer  appeal  to  the 
field  of  honour  but  to  the  court  of  justice.  Individuals,  for  the 
most  part,  have  learned  to  settle  their  quarrels,  and  to  seek  re- 
dress for  injuries  suffered,  by  law  instead  of  war.  It  is  now 
proposed  that  the  nations  go  and  do  likewise. 

The  signatory  Powers  who  covenanted  among  themselves  to 
exhaust  every  peaceable  means  of  settlement  before  going  to 
war  would  constitute  what  President  Wilson  has  felicitously 
called  a  league  of  honour.  In  the  event  of  a  signatory  to  the 
treaty  creating  the  League  of  Nations  threatening  war  against 
a  fellow-member,  without  first  submitting  its  disputes  to  public 
review  and  report,  all  the  other  members  of  the  League  would 
immediately  join  in  bringing  to  bear  both  diplomatic  and  eco- 


82  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

nomic  pressure  to  stop  the  would-be  aggressor.  If,  after  this 
joint  protest  and  non-military  coercion,  the  recalcitrant  persisted 
with  overt  acts  of  hostility  and  actually  commenced  war,  in 
violation  61  the  terms  of  the  covenant,  it  is  proposed  that  all 
the  other  nations,  in  fulfillment  of  their  treaty  pledge,  should, 
with  their  combined  military  and  naval  forces,  come  to  the  de- 
fense of  the  one  attacked.  Some  students  of  the  subject  propose 
that  this  "mutual  defence"  stipulation  apply  likewise  in  the  event 
of  any  member  of  the  League  being  attacked  by  an  outside 
Power.  Some  believe  that  the  joint  economic  and  military  force 
of  the  states  of  the  League  should  be  used  only  to  compel 
arbitration  and  enforce  delay;  others  have  become  convinced 
that  the  whole  procedure  would  degenerate  into  a  tragic  farce 
unless  the  decision  of  the  international  court  were  also  enforced. 

At  the  present  writing  it  is  the  official  position  of  the  Amer- 
ican League  to  Enforce  Peace  that  the  element  of  force  should 
be  used  only  to  compel  states  of  the  League  to  submit  their 
questions  in  dispute  for  preliminary  enquiry.  However,  many 
of  the  most  intelligent  and  influential  members  of  that  organisa- 
tion are  more  sanguine  of  success  for  a  less  conservative  pro- 
gramme. 

An  international  constabulary,  in  any  event,  would  have  to 
be  organised  to  give  effective  sanction  to  the  terms  of  the 
covenant.  And  this  will  be  true  whether  much  or  little  is  to  be 
enforced  •  whether,  after  the  war,  we  are  to  have  an  all-around 
reduction  of  armaments  or  a  general  increase  in  armaments ; 
whether  the  several  nations  are  all  to  retain  their  distinct  mili- 
tary organisations  or  pool  them  into  some  kind  of  an  interna- 
tional military  establishment. 

Some  will  ask,  Is  it  proposed  that  peace  should  be  guar- 
anteed by  force  of  arms  ?  It  is ;  but  the  arms  would  not  be 
owned  and  controlled,  absolutely,  by  an  irresponsible  imperial 
state.  Pax  Romana — or  Pax  Teutonicus — is  precisely  the  method 
which  Germany  wants  to  impose  on  a  cowed  and  subject  world. 
It  will  never  do  in  these  times.  No  modern  nation,  not  even 
poor,  distracted  Russia,  would  long  submit  to  that  kind  of  peace. 
The  peoples  of  all  free  nations  will  refuse  to  be  slaves  of  the 
sword  of  Prussia.  If  the  choice  were  exigent  they  would  prefer 
annihilation. 

But  if  not  by  the  method  of  Pax  Romana  how  then  would 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  83 

peace  be  guaranteed  by  force  of  arms?  Is  it  to  be  by  the  method 
known  as  an  "armed  peace"?  No,  for  an  armed  peace  is  the 
inevitable  military  expression  for  the  political  system  known  as 
balance  of  power,  concerning  which  the  President  has  said,  "the 
great  game  of  the  balance  of  power  has  been  forever  dis- 
credited." The  rivalry  in  armaments  made  necessary  by  this 
system  is  largely  responsible  for  the  present  war.  We  must 
substitute  a  league  of  nations  for  the  balance  of  power;  co- 
operative armaments  for  competitive  armaments;  police  force 
for  martial  force,  and  settlement  by  reason  for  settlement  by, 
might. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss,  in  academic  fashion,  the  con- 
flicting philosophies  of  right  or  wrong  as  to  the  use  of  force. 
Sensible  men,  mindful  of  the  realities,  assume  the  right  to  em- 
ploy force  in  defence  of  civilisation  as  against  an  outlaw  in- 
dividual, or  an  outlaw  nation.  The  justification  of  force  is  a 
worthy  purpose.  The  instruments  of  force  must  be  dedicated  to 
the  cause  of  law  and  order.  It  should  not  seem  so  surprising, 
on  reflection,  that  we  dare  not  put  our  trust  in  Christian  senti- 
ment or  enlightened  public  opinion,  alone,  to  prevent  war:  we 
do  not  pretend  to  maintain  law  and  order  within  nations  by 
good-will;  we  use  force,  police  and  militia. 

It  should  not  require  any  prodigal  expenditure  of  thought  to 
reach  the  conclusion  that  those  who  propose  to  end  war  by  good- 
will and  moral  suasion  are  the  visionaries  who  are  blinded  to 
the  realities  by  the  dazzling  brilliance  of  their  dreams.  The 
position  of  the  so-called  "voluntary  groups,"  who  want  to  get 
along  without  the  use  of  force,  is  identical  with  that  of  philo- 
sophic anarchism.  Some  day  the  world  may  be  ruled  by  the 
force  of  love;  but  meanwhile  why  squander  time  loafing  about 
the  corridors  of  such  an  air  castle?  Force  must  be  made  to 
wear  the  trappings  and  become  the  obedient  servant  of  reason 
and  justice. 

But,  after  all,  these  proposals — covenants,  courts,  constab- 
ulary—are of  a  negative  character.  They  are  all  calculated,  as 
lets  and  hindrances,  to  postpone  or  prevent  war.  But  peace  is 
more  than  the  mere  absence  of  war.  Some  positive  provisions 
must  be  undertaken;  some  seawall  of  community  of  interest 
must  be  constructed  if  the  world  is  not  again  to  be  deluged  with 
a  flood-tide  of  war:  there  must  be  international  co-operation. 


84  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Political  autocracy  is  not  the  only  cause  of  modern  war.  Priv- 
ilege is  Protean,  taking  many  forms  and  shapes.  Emperors  are 
not  the  only  arrogant  monarchs  and  imperialism  does  not  always 
wear  the  purple  robe  of  dynastic  ambition.  There  is  such  a 
thing  as  financial  imperialism;  there  are  czars  of  commerce  and 
monarchs  of  the  market.  Ways  and  means  must  be  discovered, 
or  invented,  to  provide  for  change  and  progress.  The  road  to 
peace  cannot  be  paved  with  cannon-balls  for  cobble-stones.  The 
parade  of  progress  must  not  be  between  serried  ranks  and 
bristling  bayonets.  It  is  ardently  hoped  that  the  Council  of 
Nations  will  labour  to  promote  justice  and  discourage  privilege. 
The  axe  must  be  laid  to  the  very  roots  of  the  Upas  Tree  of 
greed. 

Now  it  is  quite  possible  that  suggestions  have  been  advocated 
for  guaranteeing  peace — such  as,  for  example,  the  adoption  of 
universal  free  trade — that  are  more  fundamental  and  far-reach- 
ing than  the  scheme  of  an  international  league.  The  immediate 
practicability  of  the  plan,  and  its  logical  cogency,  should  de- 
termine our  preference.  And  this  is  equally  true  with  respect 
to  the  particular  plan  of  a  League  of  Nations  to  which  we  give 
our  adherence. 

It  is,  of  course,  quite  pertinent  to  ask  whether  the  Great 
Powers  will  so  far  relinquish  their  sovereignty  as  to  sign  a 
treaty  which  will  bind  them  in  advance  to  arbitrate  their  dis- 
putes, particularly  those  involving  vital  questions  of  national 
purpose  and  honour.  In  reply,  it  may  be  said  at  once,  that  a 
number  of  the  Great  Powers  have  already  expressed  themselves 
— some  more,  some  less  officially — as  ready  to  share  in  the  or- 
ganisation of  some  such  League  as  is  here  proposed.  And  so 
far  as  sacrificing  a  measure  of  sovereignty  is  concerned,  it  is 
perhaps  well  to  remind  ourselves  that  the  interdependence  of 
the  modern  world  and  the  rapid  spread  of  democratic  sentiments 
have  together  conspired  to  make  the  earlier  idea  of  absolute 
sovereignty  little  more  than  a  political  heirloom. 

•  Some  have  argued  that  even  if  the  Powers  did  so  bind 
themselves  they  would  not  hesitate  to  break  faith  when  the 
test  came.  If  that  is  so  (and  I  for  my  part  do  not  for  a 
moment  believe  it  is  so)  then  why  all  this  hullabaloo  against 
Germany  for  breaking  faith  and  invading  Belgium !  Of  course, 
it  must  be  confessed  that  nations  before  now,  and  other  na- 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  85 

tions  as  well  as  Germany,  have  torn  up  treaties  as  scraps  of 
paper.  But  the  fact  remains,  and  is  easily  verified,  that  the  vast 
majority  of  contracts  between  nations  have  been  scrupulously 
kept. 

Americans  will  say — they  have  already  said  it  many  times — 
that  Washington  warned  our  young  Republic  against  the  danger 
of  entangling  alliances  with  the  Old-World  monarchies.  But 
1796  was  a  long  time  ago,  and  since  then  the  American  experi- 
ment has  been  quite  universally  approved.  Our  line  is  gone  out 
through  all  the  earth.  The  advice  of  Jefferson  and  Washington, 
that  we  come  out  and  be  separate;  the  admonition  that  we 
should  not  be  unequally  yoked  together  with  unbelievers  in 
democracy,  though  pertinent  in  the  eighteenth  century,  is  no 
longer  pertinent.  The  Mayflower  has  voyaged  back  to  Europe 
freighted  with  liberty  and  democracy.  As  a  matter  of  history 
we  won  our  first  fight  for  freedom  by  an  alliance  with  France. 
Could  Washington  speak  today  he  would  doubtless  hail  the 
advent  of  a  league  of  liberals  to  oppose  mediaeval  monarchs. 
Did  he  not,  in  his  day,  lead  thirteen  colonies  against  the  tyranny 
of  a  despotic  sovereign?  To-day  more  than  thirteen  nations 
are  threatened  by  a  tyranny  far  worse  than  that  of  George  the 
Third. 

This  is  not  to  deny  that  for  the  United  States  to  join  the 
League  of  Nations  would  be  a  new  departure.  But  such  a  de- 
parture from  the  policy  of  aloofness  would  not  really  be  a  break 
with  tradition.  Maturity  is  a  new  and  radical  departure  from 
Youth,  bat  it  is  at  the  same  time  a  normal  development  and 
evolution. 

Neutrality  is  at  an  end.  Isolation  is  a  thing  of  the  past.  It 
is  manifest  that  America  can  no  longer  be  an  anchorite  nation. 
Our  intellectual,  moral,  economic,  and  financial  interests  have 
become  inextricably  interwoven  with  the  fabric  of  the  whole 
world.  Seclusion  is  an  illusion.  America  is  cast  to  play  an 
important  role  in  the  drama  of  history. 


86  SELECTED  ARTICLES 


THE  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS1 

There  are  projects  that  exist  in  shadowy  form  in  an  at- 
mosphere of  tepid  idealism,  admired  by  those  who  see  that,  if 
possible,  they  would  be  desirable.  From  time  to  time  an  attempt 
is  made  to  embody  them  in  material  form  and  make  them  of 
practical  use  in  national  or  international  politics.  It  is  then  dis- 
covered that  what  appeared  as  an  ideal  to  be  wholly  desirable 
and  amiable  cannot  be  of  practical  use,  unless  we  are  ready  to 
subject  ourselves  to  some  limitations  or  discipline  that  may  be 
inconvenient,  and  unless  we  are  prepared  to  overcome  some  dif- 
ficulties that  were  not  at  first  sight  apparent. 

The  ideal  is  found  to  have  in  fact  a  stern  and  disagreeable 
as  well  as  an  easy  and  amiable  side  to  it.  Thereupon  the  storm 
beats  against  it.  Those  who  never  thought  it  desirable,  for  there 
are  intelligences  to  which  most  ideals  seem  dangerous  and 
temperaments  to  which  they  are  offensive,  and  who  had  pre- 
viously treated  it  only  with  contempt  in  the  abstract,  offer  the 
fiercest  opposition  to  it  as  a  practical  proposal.  Many  of  its 
supporters  are  paralyzed  by  difficult  aspects  which  they  had  not 
previously  considered,  and  the  project  recedes  again  into  a  re- 
gion of  shadows  or  abstract  resolutions. 

This,  or  something  like  this,  has  hitherto  been  the  history  of 
the  ideal  that  has  now  become  associated  with  the  phrase 
"League  of  Nations,"  but  it  does  not  follow  that  the  history  of 
this  or  of  other  ideals  will  be  the  same  after  the  war  as  before 
it.  There  is  more  at  stake  in  this  war  than  the  existence  of  indi- 
vidual States  or  empires  or  the  fate  of  the  Continent.  The 
whole  of  modern  civilization  is  at  stake,  and  whether  it  will 
perish,  be  submerged,  as  has  happened  to  previous  civilizations 
of  older  types,  or  whether  it  will  live  and  progress  depends  upon 
whether  the  nations  engaged  in  this  war,  and  even  those  that  are 
onlookers,  learn  the  lessons  that  the  experience  of  the  war  may 
teach  them.  It  must  be  with  nations  as  with  individuals.  In  the 
great  trials  of  life  they  must  become  better  or  worse,  tney  can- 
not stand  still.  They  must  learn  to  profit  by  experience  and  rise 
to  greater  heights,  or  else  sink  lower  and  drop  eventually  into 

1  By  Viscount  Grey  of  Falloden.     Oxford  University  Press.     1918. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  87 

an  abyss.  And  this  war  is  the  greatest  trial  of  which  there  is 
any  record  in  history.  If  the  war  does  not  teach  mankind  new 
lessons  that  will  so  dominate  the  thought  and  feeling  of  those 
who  survive  it  and  those  who  succeed  the  survivors  as  to  make 
new  things  possible,  then  the  war  will  be  the  greatest  catastro- 
phe as  well  as  the  most  grievous  trial  and  suffering  of  which 
mankind  has  any  record. 

Therefore,  it  does  not  follow  that  a  league  of  nations  to 
secure  the  peace  of  the  world  will  remain  impossible  because  it 
has  not  been  possible  hitherto,  and  I  propose  in  this  paper  to 
consider  shortly,  to  state  rather  than  examine,  for  it  would  take 
a  long  time  to  examine  thoroughly  conditions  that  have  not  been 
present  before,  and  that  are  present  now,  or  may  soon  be  pres- 
ent, and  that  are  essential  if  a  league  of  nations  is  to  become 
effective. 

These  conditions  appear  to  me  to  be  as  follows: 

First,  the  idea  must  be  adopted  with  earnestness  and  con- 
viction by  the  executive  heads  of  States.  It  must  become  an  es- 
sential part  of  their  practical  policy,  one  of  their  chief  reasons 
for  being,  or  continuing  to  be,  responsible  for  the  policy  of  their 
States.  They  must  not  adopt  it  only  to  render  lip  service  to 
other  persons  whom  it  is  inconvenient  or  ungracious  to  displease. 
They  must  lead  and  not  follow.  They  must  compel,  if  neces- 
sary, and  not  be  compelled. 

This  condition  was  not  present  before  the  war.  To  what  ex- 
tent is  it  present  now?  It  is  not  possible  to  answer  this  question 
fully,  but  it  can  be  answered  certainly  and  affirmatively  as  re- 
gards President  Wilson,  the  executive  head  of  the  United  States, 
and  this  alone  is  sufficient  to  give  new  life  and  purpose  to  the 
idea  of  a  league  of  nations.  President  Wilson  and  his  country 
have  had  in  this  matter  the  great  advantage  of  having  been  for 
more  than  two  years  and  a  half,  before  April,  1917,  able  to  ob- 
serve the  war  as  neutrals,  free  from  the  intense  anxiety  and 
effort  that  absorb  all  the  thought  and  energy  of  the  belligerents. 
They  were  able  not  only  to  observe  but  to  reflect  and  to  draw 
conclusions. 

One  of  the  conclusions  has  been  that  if  the  world,  of  which 
they  form  an  important  part,  is  to  be  saved  from  what  they 
consider  disaster,  they  must  enter  the  war  against  Germany. 


88  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Another  has  been  that  if  national  liberty  and  peace  are  to  be 
secure  in  the  future  there  must  be  a  league  of  nations  to  secure 
them. 

It  must-not  be  supposed  from  this  that  the  Governments  of 
the  Allies  are  less  ready  to  draw  or  have  not  already  drawn  the 
same  conclusion  from  the  experience  of  the  war,  but  their  coun- 
tries have  been  at  war  all  the  time.  They  have  been  fighting,  it 
is  true,  for  the  same  ideal  of  national  human  liberty  as  the 
United  States,  but  fighting  also  for  the  immediate  preservation 
of  national  existence  in  Europe,  and  all  their  thought  and  en- 
ergy has  been  concentrated  upon  resistance  to  imminent  peril. 
Nevertheless,  in  this  country,  at  any  rate,  the  project  of  a  league 
of  nations  has  met  with  widespread,  cordial  acceptance. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Military  Party  in  Germany  are,  and 
must  remain,  opposed  to  it.  They  resent  any  limitation  upon  the 
use  of  force  by  Germany  as  fatal  to  German  interests,  for  they 
can  conceive  no  development  and  even  no  security  except  one 
based  solely  upon  force.  Any  other  conception  is  fatal,  and 
this  exclusive  conception  is  essential  to  the  maintenance  of  the 
power  of  the  Military  Party  in  Germany.  As  long,  therefore, 
as  this  rule  in  Germany  continues  Germany  will  oppose  the 
League  of  Nations.  Nothing  will  change  this  except  the  con- 
viction among  the  German  people  that  the  use  of  force  causes 
at  least  as  much  suffering  to  themselves  as  to  others,  and  that 
the  security  based  upon  law  and  treaty  and  the  sense  of  mutual 
advantage  is  better  than  the  risks,  dangers,  and  sufferings  of  the 
will  to  supreme  power  and  the  efforts  to  obtain  it,  and  this  con- 
viction must  so  work  upon  them  as  to  displace  the  Military 
Party  and  their  policy  and  ideals  from  power  in  Germany. 

The  situation,  therefore,  of  this  first  condition  essential  to 
make  the  League  of  Nations  practical  may  be  summed  up  as 
follows : 

It  is  present  certainly  as  regards  the  executive  head  of  the 
United  States,  which  is  potentially  the  strongest  and  actually 
the  least  exhausted  of  all  belligerent  States.  It  either  is,  or  will 
at  the  end  of  the  war  be  found  to  be,  present  as  regards  the 
Governments  of  the  countries  fighting  on  the  same  side  as  the 
United  States.  Even  among  their  enemies  Austria  has  publicly 
shown  a  disposition  to  accept  the  proposal  and  probably  wel- 
comes it  genuinely,  though  secretly,  as  a  safeguard  for  her 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  89 

future,  not  only  against  old  enemies  but  against  Prussian  domin- 
ation. All  small  States,  belligerent  or  neutral,  must  naturally 
desire  in  their  own  interest  everything  that  will  safeguard  the 
small  States  as  well  as  the  great  from  aggression  and  war. 

There  remains  the  opposition  of  Germany,  where  the  recent 
military  success  and  ascendency  of  Prussian  militarism  have  re- 
duced the  advocates  of  anything  but  force  to  silence.  Germany 
has  to  be  convinced  that  force  does  not  pay,  that  the  aims  and 
policy  of  her  military  rulers  inflict  intolerable  and  also  unneces- 
sary suffering  upon  her,  and  that  when  the  world  is  free  from 
the  menace  of  these  military  rulers,  with  their  sharp  swords, 
shining  armor,  and  mailed  fists,  Germany  will  find  peaceful  de- 
velopment assured  and  preferable  to  expansion  by  war  and  will 
realize  that  the  condition  of  true  security  for  one  nation  is  the 
sense  of  security  on  the  part  of  all  nations. 

Till  Germany  feels  this  to  be  true  there  can  be  no  League  of 
Nations  in  the  sense  intended  by  President  Wilson.  A  league 
such  as  he  desires  must  include  Germany,  and  should  include  no 
nation  that  is  not  thoroughly  convinced  of  the  advantages,  of 
the  necessity,  of  such  a  league,  and  is,  therefore,  not  prepared 
to  make  the  efforts,  and  if  need  be  the  sacrifices  necessary  to 
maintain  it. 

The  second  condition  essential  to  the  foundation  of  the 
League  of  Nations  is  that  the  Governments  and  peoples  of  the 
States  willing  to  found  it  understand  clearly  that  it  will  impose 
some  limitations  upon  the  national  action  of  each,  and  may  en- 
tail some  inconvenient  obligation.  Smaller  and  weaker  nations 
will  have  rights  that  must  be  respected  and  upheld  by  the  league. 
Stronger  nations  must  forego  the  right  to  make  their  interests 
prevail  against  the  weaker  by  force,  and  all  States  must  forego 
the  right  in  any  dispute  to  resort  to  force  before  other  methods 
of  settlement  by  conference,  conciliation,  or  if  need  be  arbitra- 
tion, have  been  tried.  This  is  the  limitation.  The  obligation  is 
that  if  any  nation  will  not  observe  this  limitation  upon  its  na- 
tional actions,  if  it  breaks  the  agreement  which  is  the  basis  of 
the  league,  rejects  all  peaceful  methods  of  settlement  and  resorts 
to  force  against  another  nation,  they  must  one  and  all  use  their 
combined  force  against  it. 

The  economic  pressure  that  such  a  league  could  use  would 
in  itself  be  very  powerful,  and  the  action  of  some  of  the  smaller 


9o  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

States  composing  the  league  could  not  perhaps  go  beyond  the 
economic  pressure,  but  those  States  that  have  the  power  must 
be  ready  to  use  all  the  force,  economic,  military,  or  naval,  they 
possess.  It  must  be  clearly  understood  and  accepted  that  de- 
flection from  or  violation  of  the  agreement  by  one  or  more 
States  does  not  absolve  all  or  any  of  the  others  from  the  obliga- 
tion to  enforce  the  agreement. 

Anything  less  than  this  is  of  no  value.  How  worthless  it 
may  be  can  be  seen  by  reading  the  debate  in  the  House  of  Lords 
in  1867  upon  the  Treaty  Guaranteeing  the  Neutrality  of  Luxem- 
burg. It  was  there  explained  that  we  entered  only  into  a  col- 
lective guarantee.  By  this  it  was  apparently  meant  that  if  any 
one  of  the  guaranteeing  powers  violated  the  neutrality  of  Lux- 
emburg, or  even  if  any  one  of  them  declined  to  take  active  steps 
to  defend  it,  Great  Britain  and  the  other  guarantors  were  there- 
by absolved  from  taking  any  action  whatever.  This  was  con- 
trasted at  the  time  with  the  Belgian  treaty,  which  entailed  a 
separate  guarantee.  Hitherto  the  nations  of  the  world  had  made 
reserves  in  arbitration  or  conciliation  agreements,  showing  that 
they  were  not  prepared  to  accept  the  limitations  upon  national 
action  that  are  essential  to  secure  an  effective  league  of  nations. 
An  exception  is  the  conciliation  treaty  between  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States  negotiated  before  the  war.  But  the  state- 
ment made  above  is  generally  true.  The  nations  also  carefully 
abstained  from  undertaking  any  obligation  to  use  force  to  up- 
hold the  benevolent  rules  of  agreements  of  general  application 
that  had  been  recorded  at  The  Hague  Conferences.  Such  ob- 
ligation had  been  confined  to  local  objects  like  the  neutrality  of 
Belgium  or  to  alliances  between  particular  powers,  made  to  pro- 
tect or  serve  their  special  interests. 

Are  the  nations  of  the  world  prepared  now,  or  will  they  be 
ready  after  the  war,  to  look  steadily  and  clearly  at  this  aspect 
of  the  League  of  Nations ;  at  the  limitations  and  obligations  that 
it  will  impose,  and  to  say  whole-heartedly  and  convincedly,  as 
they  have  never  done  before:  "We  will  accept  and  undertake 
them?"  Individuals  in  civilized  States  have  long  ago  accepted 
analogous  limitations  and  obligations  as  regards  disputes  be- 
tween individuals.  These  are  settled  by  law,  and  any  individual 
who,  instead  of  appealing  to  law,  resorts  to  force  to  give  effect 
to  what  he  considers  his  rights,  finds  himself  at  once  opposed 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  91 

and  restrained  by  the  force  of  the  State — that  is,  in  democratic 
countries,  by  the  combined  force  of  other  individuals.  And  we 
not  only  accept  this  arrangement,  but  uphold  it  as  essential  to 
prevent  the  oppression  of  one  by  another,  to  secure  each  person 
in  quiet  life,  and  to  guarantee  to  each  the  greatest  liberty  that  is 
consistent  with  the  equal  liberty  of  his  neighbors.  That  at  any 
rate  is  part  of  the  theory  and  object  of  democratic  government, 
and  if  it  is  not  perfectly  attained,  most  of  the  proposals  for  im- 
proving it  look  rather  to  increased  than  to  diminished  State  con- 
trol. 

But  in  less  civilized  parts  of  the  world  individuals  have  not 
reached  the  point  of  view  from  which  this  order  of  things  seems 
desirable.  There  is  the  story  of  the  native  chief  in  Africa  who 
protested  to  the  Britsh  official  against  having  to  pay  any  taxes. 
The  British  official  explained,  no  doubt  in  the  best  modern  man- 
ner, that  these  taxes  were  used  to  keep  order  in  the  country, 
with  the  result  that  men  and  women  and  the  flocks  and  herds 
in  the  possession  of  every  tribe  were  safe,  and  each  could  live 
in  its  own  territory  without  fear  of  disturbance,  and  that  the 
payment  of  taxes  was  for  the  good  of  all.  The  effect  of  this 
explanation  was  to  make  the  chief  very  angry.  Before  the 
British  came  he  said  he  could  raid  the  neighborhood,  return 
with  captives  and  captures  of  all  sorts,  and  be  received  in 
triumph  by  the  women  and  the  rest  of  the  tribe  when  he  re- 
turned. The  protection  of  his  own  tribe  from  similar  raids  he 
was  willing  to  undertake  himself.  "Now,"  he  said,  "you  come 
here  and  tell  me  that  I  ought  to  like  to  pay  taxes  to  be  prevented 
from  doing  this,  and  that  makes  me  mad." 

The  analogy  between  States  and  individuals  or  groups  of  in- 
dividuals, is  not  perfect,  but  there  is  sufficient  analogy  to  make 
it  not  quite  irrelevant  to  ask  whether  after  this  war  the  view 
held  by  the  great  States  of  the  relations  desirable  between  them- 
selves will  be  that  of  the  African  chief  or  that  of  individuals  in 
what  we  call  civilized  nations. 

Nothing  but  experience  convinced  individuals  that  law  was 
better  than  anarchy  to  settle  relations  between  themselves.  And 
the  sanction  that  maintains  law  is  the  application  of  force  with 
the  support  of  the  great  majority  of  individuals  behind  it.  Is 
it  possible  that  the  experience  of  this  war  will  produce  a  settled 
opinion  of  the  same  sort  to  regulate  the  relations  of  States  with 


92  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

one  another  and  to  safeguard  the  world  from  that  which  is  in 
fact  anarchy?    What  does  the  experience  of  this  war  amount  to? 

Our  minds  cannot  grasp  it.  Thought  is  crushed  by  the  ac- 
cumulated suffering  that  the  war  has  caused  and  is  still  causing. 
We  cannot  utter  all  we  feel,  and  if  it  were  not  that  our  feelings 
are  in  a  way  stunned  by  the  very  violence  of  the  catastrophe,  as 
physical  nerves  are  to  some  extent  numbed  by  great  blows,  the 
human  heart  could  not  bear  up  and  live  under  the  trial  of  this 
war.  Great  must  be  the  effect  of  all  this;  greater  after,  even, 
than  during  the  war,  on  the  working  of  men's  minds  and  on 
human  nature  itself,  but  this  is  not  what  I  intend  to  urge  here. 

I  will  urge  only  one  point,  and  one  that  is  for  the  head 
rather  than  the  heart.  We  are  now  in  the  fourth  year  of  the 
war.  The  application  of  scientific  knowledge  and  the  inventions 
of  science  during  the  war  have  made  it  more  terrible  and 
destructive  each  year.  The  Germans  have  abrogated  all  pre- 
viously accepted  rules  of  warfare.  The  use  of  poisonous  gas, 
the  firing  from  the  sea  upon  open,  undefended  towns,  and  the 
indiscriminate  bombing  of  big  cities  from  the  air  were  all  intro- 
duced into  the  war  by  Germany. 

It  was  long  before  the  Allies  adopted  any  of  these  practices 
even  as  reprisals,  but  the  Germans  have  forced  a  ruthless,  un- 
limited application  of  scientific  discovery  to  the  destruction  of 
human  life,  combatant  and  non-combatant.  They  have  shown 
the  world  that  now  and  henceforth  war  means  this,  and  nothing 
less  than  this. 

If  there  is  to  be  another  war  in  twenty  or  thirty  years'  time, 
what  will  it  be  like?  If  there  is  to  be  concentrated  preparation 
for  more  war,  the  researches  of  science  will  be  devoted  hence- 
forth to  discovering  methods  by  which  the  human  race  can  be 
destroyed.  These  discoveries  cannot  be  confined  to  one  nation, 
and  their  object  of  wholesale  destruction  will  be  much  more 
completely  achieved  hereafter  even  than  in  this  war.  The  Ger- 
mans are  not  blind  to  this,  but,  as  far  as  I  can  see,  their  rulers 
propose  to  avoid  future  wars  by  establishing  domination  by  Ger- 
many forever. 

Peace  can  never  be  secured  by  the  domination  of  one  country; 
securing  its  power  and  prosperity  by  submission  and  disad- 
vantage to  others;  and  the  German  idea  of  a  world  peace  se- 
cured by  the  power  of  German  militarism  is  impracticable  as 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  93 

well  as  unfair  and  abhorrent  to  other  nations.  It  is  as  intoler- 
able and  impossible  in  the  world  as  despotism  would  be  here  or 
in  the  United  States. 

In  opposition  to  this  idea  of  Germany,  the  Allies  should  set 
forth,  as  President  Wilson  has  already  set  forth,  an  idea  of  peace 
secured  by  mutual  regard  between  States  for  the  rights  of  each, 
and  the  determination  to  stamp  out  any  attempt  at  war  as  they 
would  a  plague  that  threatened  the  destruction  of  all.  When 
those  who  accept  this  idea  and  this  sort  of  peace  can  in  word 
and  deed  speak  for  Germany  we  shall  be  within  sight  of  a  good 
peace. 

The  establishment  and  maintenance  of  a  league  of  nations 
such  as  President  Wilson  had  advocated  is  more  important  and 
essential  to  secure  peace  than  any  of  the  actual  terms  of  peace 
that  may  conclude  the  war.  It  will  transcend  them  all.  The 
best  of  them  will  be  worth  little  unless  the  future  relations  of 
States  are  to  be  on  a  basis  that  will  prevent  a  recurrence  of 
militarism  in  any  State. 

"Learn  by  experience  or  suffer,"  is  the  rule  of  life.  We  have 
all  of  us  seen  individuals  becoming  more  and  more  a  misery  to 
themselves  and  others  because  they  cannot  understand  or  will 
not  accept  this  rule.  Is  it  not  applicable  to  nations  as  well? 
And,  if  so,  have  not  nations  come  to  the  great  crisis  in  which 
for  them  the  rule  "Learn  or  perish"  will  prove  inexorable?  All 
must  learn  the  lesson  of  this  war.  The  United  States  and  the 
Allies  cannot  save  the  world  from  militarism  unless  Germany 
learns  her  lesson  thoroughly  and  completely,  and  they  will  not 
save  the  world  or  even  themselves  by  a  complete  victory  over 
Germany  until  they,  too,  have  learned  and  can  apply  the  lesson 
that  militarism  has  become  the  deadly  enemy  of  mankind. 


THE  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS1 

War  is  an  operation  of  the  social  instinct.  If  tragedy  is  the 
conflict  of  two  rights,  war  is  the  shock  of  two  social  organ- 
isms. It  is  the  ultimate  expression  of  the  solidarity  which  knits 
a  social  unit.  Of  the  social  units  which  we  call  national  states 

1  From  "Foundations  of  Internationalism,"  prize  essay,  by  H.  N.  Brails- 
ford.  In  English  Review,  p.  87,  August,  1918. 


94  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

it  is  broadly  true  that  war  is  possible  between  them,  but  not 
within  them.  That  elementary  fact  must  be  our  clue  in  any  in- 
vestigation of  the  problem  of  a  durable  peace.  If,  by  the  crea- 
tion of  a  League  of  Nations,  we  mean  merely  that  the  external 
bond  of  a  treaty  of  arbitration  is  to  link  states,  which  retain 
their  old  individualism  and  their  traditions  of  nationalist  morals 
and  nationalist  economics,  it  would  be  folly  to  suppose  that  we 
can  abolish  war.  Theoretically,  the  only  security  seems  to  lie  in 
some  organic  international  association,  which,  by  the  creation 
of  intimate  and  pervasive  relationships  of  interdependence  within 
itself,  is  at  least  in  process  of  evolution  towards  the  ideal  of 
international  solidarity. 

There  is  certainly  no  warrant  in  history  for  the  assumption 
that  the  national  state,  or  even  the  composite  empire,  is  the  final 
form  of  the  social  unit,  which  alone  can  claim  our  loyalty  and 
subordinate  our  egoistic  strivings.  From  the  clan  to  the  empire 
the  social  unit  has  passed  through  many  phases  of  evolution  and 
expansion.  To  this  process  the  social  instinct  of  the  citizens 
has  adapted  itself  with  surprising  versatility.  In  the  nineteenth 
century  war  was  still  possible  between  the  States  of  disunited 
Germany  and  Italy.  To-day  the  sons  of  fathers  who  knew 
neither  Germany  nor  Italy  fight  for  the  larger  national  unit 
with  the  instinctive  passion  of  clansmen.  An  academic  demon- 
stration that  the  social  unit  is  elastic  and  the  social  instinct 
adaptable  will  not  carry  us  far  towards  our  goal.  The  dominat- 
ing fact  of  our  generation  in  world-politics  has  been  the  forma- 
tion of  a  new  type  of  association,  much  larger,  though  much 
looser  in  its  structure,  than  anything  that  endured  in  the  past. 
The  modern  alliance  is  incomparably  more  intimate  than  the 
dynastic  groupings  and  the  military  coalitions  of  the  past,  and 
promises  to  be  more  permanent.  The  two  groups  which  divided 
Europe  on  the  even  of  this  war  had  formed  the  habit  of  con- 
certed action  even  in  the  normal  operations  of  peace.  Austria 
was  Germany's  "brilliant  second"  in  every  diplomatic  exchange, 
and  France  expected,  without  always  receiving,  a  like  support 
from  Russia.  When  the  Dual  Alliance  became  the  Triple 
Entente,  British  finance  fell  into  line  and  shared  with  France 
the  risks  of  maintaining  the  financial  stability  of  Tsardom.  The 
fact  that  in  the  precarious  balance  of  pre-war  Europe  the  safety 
of  each  Power  might  depend  on  the  prosperity,  the  solvency, 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  95 

and  the  efficient  armament  of  its  allies  had  begun  to  blur,  though 
not  to  obliterate,  the  dividing  lines  of  national  egoism  and  sep- 
aratism. The  war  has  in  both  camps  carried  the  evolution  im- 
measurably further.  There  is  a  common  purse  while  the  war 
lasts;  there  is  even  in  our  combination  a  common  larder.  The 
rationing  among  the  Allies  of  essential  food  supplies  and  raw 
materials  implies  a  community  of  interest  that  is,  even  in  war,  a 
new  fact  in  international  life.  Pitt's  subsidies  were  only  a 
shadowy  anticipation  of  this  system.  It  is  already  recognized 
that  much  of  this  common  machinery  must  outlast  the  war. 

These  are  political  phenomena,  but  they  must  assuredly  have 
a  large  reaction  upon  economics.  On  the  whole,  it  was  broadly 
true  before  this  war  that  financiers  acted  by  preference  or 
necessity  in  national  groups.  There  were,  however,  interesting 
anticipatory  types  which  seemed  to  point  to  the  coming  interna- 
tionalisation  of  some  of  the  more  highly  organised  forms  of 
production.  An  international  agreement  in  the  steel  trade  par- 
celled out  to  each  of  the  chief  national  industries  the  world- 
market  in  steel  rails.  It  needs  no  elaborate  argument  to  show 
that  the  rationing  of  raw  materials  after  the  war  by  the  Allies 
must  involve  an  understanding  not  merely  as  to  what  each  Ally 
requires  for  its  own  national  consumption,  but  also  an  under- 
standing as  to  the  export  trade  of  each  in  the  manufactured 
articles.  Within  each  group  of  Allies  commercial  rivalry  must 
diminish,  and  cooperation,  or  even  syndication,  tend  to  take  its 
place.  However  calculating  and  self-regarding  this  process  may 
be,  it  must  play  its  part  in  breaking  down,  at  least  in  the  upper 
world  of  industry  and  finance,  the  cruder  and  more  egoistic 
assumptions  of  nationalist  economics. 

If  the  closer  organisation  as  permanent  military  and  economic 
alliances  of  these  two  groups  involves  within  them  some  develop- 
ment and  enlargement  of  the  social  consciousness,  it  also  carries 
with  it  a  challenge  and  menace  to  posterity.  While  these  two 
coalitions  survive,  every  war  must  needs  be  a  universal  war.  It 
wants  a  hardy  optimism  to  believe  that  after  a  sullen  peace  the 
equilibrium  between  these  two  supernational  groups  could  long 
be  stable.  Each  would  labour  to  detach  the  less  contented  and 
the  less  loyal  partners  of  the  rival  coalition.  An  active  contest 
would  proceed  between  them  for  the  allegiance  of  the  remaining 
neutrals.  Every  bitter  memory,  every  new  suspicion  would  give 


96  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

to  their  organised  rivalry  in  trade  the  passionate  colour  of  a 
political  contest.  No  promptings  of  economy  could  long  restrain 
the  inevitable  rivalry  in  armaments.  As  they  strove  for  the 
opening  of  closed  markets  and  for  access  to  raw  materials,  the 
will  to  prosper  and  live  would  drive  them,  as  soon  as  the  ravages 
of  this  war  were  repaired,  to  an  even  sharper  conflict  over  a 
more  elementary  issue.  A  decorous  truce,  a  bloodless  rivalry,  is 
barely  conceivable  if,  at  the  settlement  of  this  war,  two  un- 
reconciled coalitions  confront  each  other  with  a  programme  of 
economic  war.  We  shall  make  either  one  supernational  League 
or  two.  It  is  a  choice  between  war  and  peace. 

There  is  in  human  affairs  a  dialectic  by  which  evil  cures  it- 
self by  its  mere  excess.  National  strife  has  led  us  to  a  war  of 
coalitions.  Let  use  inquire  whether  the  dread  of  its  renewal  in 
a  still  more  terrible  form  can  impose  upon  us  the  immense 
achievement  of  constructing  a  single  League  of  Peace. 

We  have  seen  that  the  social  unit  is  itself  variable  and  elastic, 
and  there  are  indications  that  the  social  instinct  can  adapt  itself 
with  surprising  versatility  to  the  variations  of  this  unit.  This 
argument,  though  it  clears  away  some  preliminary  doubts,  is  far 
from  being  decisive.  We  have  still  to  cope  with  the  direct  and 
positive  tendencies  which  in  the  past  have  insisted  on  the  forci- 
ble settlement  of  disputes.  The  mind  of  Europe,  as  we  knew  it 
on  the  even  of  this  war,  was,  in  the  mass,  precisely  such  a  com- 
plex of  thwarted  impulses  and  half-successful  inhibitions  as 
Freud  and  his  school  have  studied  in  the  mental  life  of  the  in- 
dividual. Through  the  subconscious  life  of  most  European  na- 
tions there  ran  the  recurrent  motive  of  a  desire  for  some  or- 
ganic change,  some  international  readjustment,  which  was  hardly 
to  be  attained  in  the  world  as  we  knew  it  by  the  normal  proces- 
ses of  peace.  The  French  desire  for  the  revanche  and  the  lost 
provinces,  the  Serbian  passion  for  Jugo-Slav  unity,  the  Bulgarian 
craving  for  Macedonia,  and  Italian  Irredentism  are  the  more 
obvious  instances  of  these  restless  demands  for  change.  Add  to 
these  the  romantic  passion  of  the  Russian  Imperialist  for  Con- 
stantinople, and  the  sense  of  the  German  patriot  that  the  ex- 
tension of  his  Empire  overseas,  measured  relatively  by  that  of 
Britain  or  France,  was  far  from  corresponding  to  the  vigour 
of  his  national  organism,  its  population,  or  its  industrial  capac- 
ity, and  you  have  accumulated  fuel  enough  even  for  a  world- 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  97 

conflagration.  These  impulses  were  restrained  from  year  to 
year  and  from  decade  to  decade  by  prudence,  by  morals,  by  the 
fear  of  the  world's  public  opinion.  The  rigid  structure  of  our 
international  life  opposed  their  realisation.  Of  some  of  them 
(notably  the  Alsatian  and  South  Slav  questions)  we  may  say 
confidently  that  no  radical  solution  was  conceivable  without  war. 
Others,  and  especially  the  Colonial  questions,  were  capable  under 
favourable  conditions  of  a  pacific  settlement.  Even  so,  the  dis- 
putes which  turned  on  our  tenure  of  Egypt,  on  the  French  claim 
to  Morocco,  on  the  Anglo-Russian  rivalry  in  the  Middle  East, 
on  German  ambitions  in  Turkey  and  Africa  (as  the  Lichnowsky 
Memorandum  shows),  were  settled  only  after  prolonged  periods 
of  tension  and  some  narrow  escapes  from  war.  Even  in  these 
more  fortunate  instances  the  appeal  to  force  was  made,  though 
both  sides  recoiled  in  the  end,  after  the  dry  warfare  of  arma- 
ments, from  the  actual  shedding  of  blood.  The  impulses  to 
change,  which  made  no  formal  war,  were  none  the  less  active. 
They  worked  on  the  play  of  national  motive;  they  piled  up 
armaments;  they  forged  alliances.  Again,  and  yet  again,  such 
an  impulse  as  the  French  desire  for  la  revanche,  though  it  made 
no  war,  availed  to  deflect  a  nation's  policy  from  the  course 
which  might  have  led  to  peace.  To  all  these  radical  impulses 
towards  war  the  Anglo-Saxon  peoples  are  strangers.  We  have 
no  unredeemed  kinsmen;  our  estate  in  the  world  is  ample;  we 
possess  all  that  force  might  win.  The  consequence  is  that  we 
are  apt  to  apply  to  the  problem  of  an  enduring  peace  a  set  of 
conceptions  essentially  conservative.  We  aim  too  exclusively  at 
security.  We  conceive  a  League  of  Peace  too  simply  as  an  or- 
ganisation which  will  stereotype  the  status  quo  and  repress  the 
disturber  of  the  established  order.  That  way  lies  stagnation 
and,  in  the  end,  the  inevitable  insurgence  of  living  forces  against 
this  death  in  life.  Change  is  a  biological  necessity.  The  damn- 
ing verdict  on  the  old  Europe  is  not  that  its  suppressed  impulses 
for  change  flamed  at  last  into  a  universal  war,  but  rather  that 
its  structure  was  so  rigid,  its  power  of  self -adjustment  so  lim- 
ited, that  save  through  war  no  radical  change  was  possible  within 
it 

With  this  preface  it  is  possible  to  advance  to  a  closer  state- 
ment of  our  problem.  If  the  aim  of  a  League  of  Nations  be  to 
restrain  lawless  force  and  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  such  a 


98  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

conflict  as  rages  to-day,  it  must  furnish  an  international  organ- 
isation which  can  ensure  that  timely  changes  shall  be  effected  in 
the  world  before  any  people  is  driven  by  an  intolerable  griev- 
ance, or  even  by  a  reasonable  ambition,  to  force  change  by  arms. 
That  definition  may  seem  remote  to  the  man  whose  aspirations 
are  limited  to  security.  Security  in  every  community,  however, 
is  purchased  only  by  a  constant  adaptability.  The  penalty  of 
rigidity  in  the  state  is  revolution,  as  in  the  world  of  States  it  is 
war.  The  architect  of  such  a  League  has  a  double  task  before 
him.  He  must  persuade  the  satisfied  and  conservative  Powers 
that  their  safety  depends  in  the  long  run  on  their  entry  into  a 
combination  which  must  impose  some  limits  on  their  sovereignty 
— limits,  it  is  true,  of  the  kind  which  every  permanent  Alliance 
exacts  to-day.  He  must  persuade  the  restless  and  ambitious 
Powers  that  the  structure  and  constitution  of  the  League  offer 
some  guarantee  that  their  aspirations,  in  so  far  as  they  can  be 
reconciled  with  the  common  good,  will  be  fairly  met.  He  will 
encounter  from  both  parties  an  obstinate  scepticism. 

The  Powers  which  regard  the  League  primarily  as  an  in- 
surance against  attack  will  riddle  the  defensive  basis  of  its 
covenant  with  doubt.  That  covenant,  however  it  is  eventually 
drafted,  must  probably  provide  (i)  for  the  submission  of  all 
acute  international  disputes  to  the  appropriate  tribunal,  council, 
or  mediator  for.  settlement ;  (2)  for  a  suspense  of  all  warlike 
acts,  and  also  of  mobilisation,  until  the  supernational  authority 
has  published  its  finding,  and  for  some  time  thereafter;  (3)  for 
the  joint  action  of  all  the  signatory  Powers  to  repress  any 
Government,  by  economic  and,  at  need,  by  military  coercion,  if 
it  should  violate  this  pact.  These  are  tremendous  undertakings. 
The  risk  is  twofold.  Some  Power  may  break  its  covenant,  and 
if  it  has  provided  itself  with  allies  the  conflict  which  results  will 
reproduce  the  present  strife  with  something  of  the  added  bitter- 
ness of  civil  war.  Again,  it  is  a  large  assumption  that  in  such  a 
case  all  the  innocent  Powers  would  keep  their  bond  and  rally  to 
the  defence  of  the  League ;  and  even  if  in  name  they  did  so, 
they  might  not  furnish  their  contingents  with  sufficient  gener- 
osity or  alacrity.  There  is  no  final  answer  to  these  doubts.  No 
human  institution  can  promise  to  work  with  mechanical  per- 
fection, and  life  would  lose  half  its  stimuli  if  all  danger  were 
eliminated.  The  practical  answer  to  this  scepticism  is,  sum- 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  99 

marily,  that  on  no  terms  can  we  avoid  these  risks,  and  that  any 
other  kind  of  insurance  reproduces  them  in  a  more  aggravated 
form.  The  man  who  declares  that  he  will  never  trust  the  signa- 
ture of  the  Power  which  violated  Belgium  to  any  covenant  what- 
ever must  be  invited  to  follow  two  simple  lines  of  thought.  In 
the  first  place,  the  Power  which  has  given  its  bond,  even  if  its 
repute  for  faith  stands  low,  has  some  obstacles  to  overcome  be- 
fore it  can  break  its  word,  which  would  be  absent  if  it  were 
unpledged.  With  some  resistance,  however  ineffective,  and  on 
some  reluctance  it  must  reckon  among  its  own  population,  and 
on  some  loss  of  prestige  it  must  count  beyond  its  frontiers.  In 
the  second  place,  so  far  from  assuming  that  every  Power  will 
spontaneously  keep  its  oath,  the  League  is  an  elaborate  system 
of  insurance  against  oath-breaking.  The  Entente's  combination 
was  built  upon  divers  motives  and  calculations,  in  some  cases  by 
painful  and  difficult  bargaining,  during  three  years  of  war,  by 
the  gradual  adhesion  first  of  Italy,  then  of  Roumania,  and  lastly 
of  America.  The  League  will  be  ready,  without  these  delays 
and  without  bargainings,  to  act  unitedly  on  the  single  ground 
that  its  covenant  has  been  violated. 

The  sceptic  who  questions  whether  all  the  innocent  Powers 
would  fulfill  their  obligation  must  face  the  objection  that  an 
Alliance  itself  offers  no  absolute  security.  Two  late  Allies  of 
Germany  have  fought  against  her,  and  one  of  ours  has  quitted 
our  camp.  "Treaties,"  as  Lord  Salisbury  said,  "are  mortal"  ; 
and  the  only  inventions  which  the  wisdom  of  the  past  had  erected 
as  a  security  against  war  have  ceased  to  be  even  plausible  illu- 
sions. Alliances  give  no  absolute  security.  The  Balance  of 
Power  resembles  the  flux  of  Heraclitus.  There  is  only  one 
thing  which  may  always  with  safety  be  affirmed  of  it :  it  oscil- 
lates. Nor  should  we,  if  we  could  carve  frontiers,  annex  naval 
bases,  and  dominate  straits  at  our  good  pleasure,  be  nearer  to 
absolute  safety.  Invention  laughs  at  strategical  locksmiths.  The 
Power  which  had  secured  itself  on  the  face  of  the  waters 
discovered  that  its  peril  lay  below  them.  If  that  danger  could 
be  conjured  away  we  should  waken  to  find  that  our  precautions 
had  forgotten  the  resources  of  the  air.  There  is,  in  short,  no 
substitute  for  a  League  of  Nations  which  is  immune  from  risks. 
This,  however,  one  may  say:  the  Partial  Alliance  challenges  and 
provokes  the  danger  of  war.  It  makes  the  risk,  because  by  its 


ioo  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

constant  and  costly  provision  against  it,  it  assumes  the  probabil- 
ity of  war  as  the  central  fact  of  international  life.  It  allows 
the  thinking  of  mankind  to  start  from  the  reckoning  that  war  is 
inevitable,  and  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  passions  of  men  pro- 
ceed to  verify  the  prediction  which  treaties  and  armaments 
steadily  proclaim.  A  League  of  Nations  will  start  from  the 
contrary  assumption.  It  will  proclaim  that  law  is  the  rule  and 
crime  the  exception.  When  that  belief  is  embodied  in  institu- 
tions, the  thinking  of  mankind  will  adapt  itself  to  the  new  order. 
The  objections  which  will  come  from  the  more  adventurous 
Powers,  whose  interest  lies  in  future  change,  may  be  somewhat 
harder  to  meet.  The  League's  architect  must  satisfy  them  not 
merely  that  they  will  receive  fair  and  considerate  treatment  in 
its  courts  and  councils,  but  also  that  when  an  award  or  recom- 
mendation is  published  there  will  be  a  reasonable  probability 
that  it  will  be  executed.  The  standard  schemes  of  the  League 
do  not  propose  to  make  the  enforcement  of  these  awards  ob- 
ligatory on  the  League.  That  is  probably  a  wise  limitation,  but 
the  League  would  promptly  dissolve  unless,  with  or  without  a 
formal  undertaking,  it  contrived  in  clear,  and  grave,  and  urgent 
cases  that  the  decisions  of  its  Courts  and  Councils  should  be 
respected.  There  is  probably  little  difficulty  about  justiceable 
disputes,  which  can  be  referred  to  decision  by  a  court  following 
recognised  principles  of  law.  The  more  speculative  and  doubtful 
aspect  of  the  League  opens  out,  when  we  reflect  that  the  dis- 
putes which  commonly  lead  to  war,  turn  on  issues  neither  of 
fact  nor  of  law,  and  can  be  settled  only  by  an  application  of 
current  standards  of  policy  and  morals,  which  vary  from  gen- 
eration to  generation,  and  which  no  two  peoples  would  define  in 
the  same  terms.  Can  a  Council  of  Conciliation  be  composed 
which  will  not  merely  be  free  from  prejudice  and  bias,  but  will 
command  an  authority  so  great  that  both  disputants  will  bow  to 
it?  Let  us  assume  that  it  will  not  attempt  to  impose  ideal  jus- 
tice— ideal  justice  is  a  moral  dynamite  which  would  wreck  any 
human  society — but  will  suggest  rather  compromise  solutions 
which  will  ease  acute  disputes.  Even  so,  it  is  evident  that  such 
a  Council  can  neither  be  set  up,  nor  trusted,  nor  obeyed,  save 
upon  one  general  condition:  that  there  is  a  measure  of  con- 
fidence and  good  will  among  all  the  more  influential  Powers 
when  the  League  is  created.  That  condition  is  at  the  lowest  so 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  'ic* 

difficult  that  one  must  beware  of  overstating  it.  It  need  imply  no 
sentimental  reconciliation,  no  evangelical  readiness  to  love  one's 
enemy.  It  means  primarily  this:  that  all  the  leading  Powers 
should  be  so  convinced  of  the  necessity  for  a  League  that  they 
will  make  concessions  to  ensure  its  smooth  working.  Not  senti- 
ment, but  the  effective  will  to  make  a  workable  League  is  the 
first  condition  of  its  creation.  Should  we  make  the  League,  we 
are  realists  enough  to  perceive  that  it  would  fail  if  a  Power  so 
considerable  as  Germany  had  reason  to  feel  that  she  met  with 
less  than  justice  within  it.  Needless  to  say,  the  necessity  for  a 
like  spirit  of  concession  from  her  would  be  equally  imperative. 
Without  minimising  the  importance  of  questions  of  mechanism 
in  devising  the  League,  it  is  on  the  ability  to  create  an  at- 
mosphere of  confidence  that  its  future  depends. 


THE  LEAGUE  OF  FREE  NATIONS  1 

The  time  has  arrived  when  it  is  possible  to  take  stock  of  the 
accumulating  mass  of  suggestions  centering  about  the  phrase  the 
League  of  Nations.  It  is  a  phrase  often  very  loosely  used  and 
often  very  recklessly  abused.  It  must  be  confessed  that  to  begin 
with  it  conveyed  to  most  minds  rather  an  aspiration  than  any 
detailed  content.  It  was  little  more  than  the  expression  of  a  de- 
sire for  some  organized  attempt  to  end  war  in  the  world;  in 
some  manner  the  states  of  the  world  were  to  come  together  in  a 
more  or  less  binding  pledge  to  substitute  law  for  force  in  their 
interaction.  Thereby  men's  minds  were  to  be  released  from  the 
growing  obsession  with  militarism  and  their  energies  released 
for  better  ends  than  warfare.  But  beyond  that  nothing  was 
clear. 

Within  the  frame  supplied  by  this  phrase,  however,  an  enor- 
mous amount  of  mental  activity  has  gone  on,  and  much  that  was 
entirely  vague  has  now  been  thought  out.  This  war  has  forced 
upon  men  of  the  most  diverse  types  and  experiences  a  common 
conviction  that  the  increasing  range,  destructiveness  and  in- 
clusiveness  of  modern  belligerence  threaten  to  exhaust  the  re- 
sources of  mankind  and  destroy  human  society ;  and  what  was  at 

!By  H.  G.  Wells.  Saturday  Evening  Post.  191:10,52.  November 
23,  1918. 


102  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

first  the  suggestion  of  a  few  intellectuals  has  become  the  basis 
for  a  series  of  weighed  and  balanced  practical  proposals,  made 
not  as  Utopian  improvements  of  human  conditions  but  as  plain 
necessities  arising  out  of  an  otherwise  intolerable  situation. 

We  have,  in  the  last  four  years,  found  out  the  real  nature  of 
modern  war.  The  struggle  has  differed  from  warfare  as  man- 
kind has  hitherto  known  it.  It  has  become  a  more  onerous  and 
unstable  process,  a  struggle  of  uncontrollable  inventions  that 
makes  insatiable  demands  upon  every  human  resource.  It  has 
rapidly  abolished  nearly  every  discrimination  between  combatant 
and  noncombatant,  and  it  refuses  to  tolerate  any  other  activity 
than  itself.  Everything  goes  in.  It  has  ceased  to  be  a  war  of 
fronts  and  become  a  war  of  whole  populations ;  the  submarine 
defies  blockades  and  the  command  of  the  sea;  the  aeroplane 
grows  not  only  in  size  and  destructive  power  but  in  range  of 
action.  And  withal,  the  new  warfare  remains  less  conclusive 
th,an  any  warfare  has  been  for  long  periods  of  time.  Continually 
it  produces  new  and  more  costly  and  destructive  weapons  and 
renders  wider  areas  uninhabitable. 

When  this  war  concludes,  unless  it  concludes  in  some  ab- 
solutely convincing  world  pacification,  it  is  manifest  that  there 
will  have  to  be  added  to  the  army  and  navy  of  our  former 
ideas,  and  kept  always  in  a  state  of  acute  preparedness,  a  vast 
air  fleet,  a  vast  antiaircraft  equipment,  a  vast  extension  of  the 
navy  for  submarine  and  antisubmarine  work,  a  huge,  constantly 
developing  tank  force,  a  drilled  population,  and  a  huge  estab- 
lishment of  war  factories.  We  shall,  indeed,  be  eaten  up  by 
armaments  compared  with  which  the  armaments  of  1913  will 
seem  trivial  miniatures. 

Peace  under  insecure  conditions,  even  if  it  brings  a  certain 
cessation  of  the  slaughter,  will  bring  but  little  relief  of  the  bur- 
dens of  armament.  The  masses  will  be  called  upon  to  bear  these 
burdens  still,  without  any  of  the  stir  and  excitement  of  actual 
war  or  any  hope  of  an  end.  Men  of  the  laboring  class,  no 
longer  under  military  discipline,  will  be  packed  in  armament 
factories,  engaged  upon  the  endless  tasks  of  preparedness.  Food 
and  every  amenity  of  life  will  remain,  as  now,  the  skimped  pro- 
duction of  a  fringe  of  inferior  workers.  Prices  will  continue  to 
soar  above  wages. 

Few  observant  people  believe  that  labor  will  stand  the  new 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  103 

armed  peace  for  long  in  any  country  of  the  world;  and  Russia 
has  shown  what  may  happen  to  a  population  strained  beyond  its 
breaking  point.  When  a  government  goes,  another  government 
may  take  its  place,  but  when  a  social  system  breaks,  it  is  a  stam- 
pede. 

The  nature  of  the  prospect  grows  so  clear  that  intelligent 
men  of  every  party  and  every  type  of  social  prepossession  are 
coming  together  upon  this  fundamental  necessity  of  putting  an 
end  to  war  and  the  threat  of  war.  There  is  no  party  in  the 
political  world  that  has  not  given  prominent  adherents  now  to 
the  league-of-nations  idea. 

With  this  irruption  into  the  league-of-nations  movement  of 
practical  men  convinced  of  the  grave  need  of  a  real  efficient 
check  on  war,  there  has  been,  one  must  admit,  a  considerable 
strain  upon  the  exact  intimations  of  the  title.  From  the  outset 
there  has  been  a  very  understandable  disposition  to  contemplate 
it  as  not  strictly  a  league  of  nations  but  as  a  league  of  states ; 
and  the  word  "league"  is  now  being  strained  very  hard  indeed 
in  the  direction  of  federation.  A  league  implies  that  sovereignty 
is  not  infringed;  but  clear-headed  men  began  to  realize  quite 
early  in  the  discussion  that  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  a  se- 
cure and  permanent  world  peace  without  very  considerable 
qualifications  of  sovereignty. 

President  Wilson  again  has  introduced  a  whole  new  set  of 
considerations  by  inserting  the  adjective  "free"  before  "nations." 
At  the  present  time  it  is  possible  to  classify  the  advocates  of  a 
league  of  nations  into  a  number  of  groups  differing  very  ma- 
terially among  themselves  and  agreeing  exactly,  indeed,  only 
upon  one  idea — the  initial  proposition  that  it  is  a  possible  and 
necessary  thing  to  restrain  war  by  an  international  arrange- 
ment. Most  of  them  agree  that  it  is  likely  to  prove  an  extraor- 
dinarily difficult  thing  to  do ;  but  they  can  see  no  alternative  to 
the  attempt  but  a  fatalistic  submission  to  the  complete  wreckage 
of  our  present  civilization. 

Roughly  one  may  arrange  league-of-nations  proposals,  as  they 
are  to  be  encountered  at  the  present  time,  into  a  series  between 
two  extreme  positions. 

On  the  extreme  left  is  what  is  practically  a  defeatist  pro- 
posal, a  mere  rehabilitation  of  The  Hague  Tribunal.  It  is  a 
timid  scheme  for  delay  and  arbitration;  some  sort  of  interna- 


104  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

tional  conference  is  to  meet  occasionally;  there  are  to  be  a 
supreme  court  and  a  court  of  conciliation — the  former  to  try 
disputes  upon  points  of  international  law,  the  latter  to  discuss 
nonjusticiable  differences. 

No  interference  with  the  political  constitution  or  internal  ar- 
rangements of  any  state  is  contemplated;  no  organized  dis- 
armament and  control  of  militarism  can  therefore  occur.  Ger- 
many, undefeated  and  unregenerate,  will,  for  instance,  be  ad- 
mitted to  such  a  league  on  the  expression  of  a  few  pious  senti- 
ments. 

This  is  the  scope  of  the  American  scheme  of  Mr.  Theodore 
Marburg;  and  it  has  the  support  in  England  of  such  extreme 
radicals  as  Mr  Lowes  Dickinson — if  we  may  call  men  radicals 
who  shrink  from  revolution.  We  may  call  these  extremists  the 
weak  leaguers,  and  their  proposal  the  Weak  League  of  Nations. 
Nothing  could  be  more  acceptable  to  German  imperialism,  under 
a  cloud,  than  the  schemes  they  put  forward.  Such  a  league  of 
nations  would  have  about  as  much  effect  upon  Hohenzollern 
Germany  as  a  blue  neck  ribbon  upon  the  aims  and  activities  of 
a  tiger.  But  the  common  sense  of  practical  men  breaks  away 
from  this  proposal  to  keep  the  peace  by  gossamer.  It  breaks 
away  in  two  directions,  which  are  not  nearly  so  opposed  as  one 
may  think  at  the  first  glance.  One  is  to  reject  and  abuse  the 
idea  of  a  league  of  nations  on  the  assumption  that  the  Marburg 
scheme  exhausts  its  possibilities — compare  ex-President  Roose- 
velt; the  other  is  to  put  more  substance  into  the  proposal.  Few 
of  us  desire  to  see,  as  a  principal  outcome  of  this  world  catastro- 
phe, a  collection  of  eminent  jurists  at  The  Hague  making  nerv- 
ous gestures  at  the  forces  that  will  prepare  the  next. 

What  most  sensible  people  desire  is  either  a  strong  league  of 
nations  or  no  league  of  nations  at  all.  If  the  beast  of  modern 
war  is  to  be  chained  it  must  have  a  chain  to  hold  it  and  not  a 
packthread.  The  whole  drift  of  recent  discussion  of  the  league 
of  nations  lies  in  the  direction  of  estimating  what  weight  of 
chain  is  absolutely  necessary,  and  what  we  must  do  to  get  that 
chain. 

For  most  of  those  who  have  recently  come  into  the  move- 
ment, it  is  not  a  question  of  whether  we  will  have  a  world  league 
or  not,  but  what  price  in  change,  effort  and  independence  we 
shall  have  to  pay  for  it.  •  A  restoration  of  the  crazy  political 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  105 

world  order  of  1914,  of  a  patchwork  of  absolutely  independent 
sovereign  empires,  competitive,  disingenuous  and  suspicious — 
and  so  compelled  to  be  armed  to  the  teeth,  uncontrolled  by  any 
general  understanding — is,  in  view  of  the  steady  development  of 
the  means  of  destruction,  the  one  prospect  we  cannot  endure. 

Directly  the  idea  of  the  league  of  nations  is  released  from 
the  limitation  imposed  upon  it  by  the  jurists — that  it  has  to  meet 
with  the  approval  of  a  Hohenzollern-governed  Germany — it  be- 
gins to  expand  mightily  in  our  minds.  It  begins  to  take  on  a 
form  and  an  elaboration  commensurate  with  the  scale  of  the 
war.  Instead  of  being  a  mere  delaying  intervention  and  remon- 
strance, upon  the  eve  of  war,  of  a  respectable  but  powerless 
assembly  of  jurists,  it  enlarges  into  a  project  for  a  world  control 
of  the  preparation  for  war  and  for  a  world  anticipation  of  its 
causes.  It  becomes  a  scheme  for  a  new  political  order  in  the 
world.  To  talk  of  love  is  to  make  love,  the  wise  have  said;  still 
truer  is  it  that  to  organize  armies  is  to  make  war. 

If  the  league  of  nations  is  to  be  a  reality  in  the  days  to  come 
it  must  have  sufficient  authority  and  power  to  inquire  into,  re- 
strain and  suppress  armaments  on  land  and  sea,  wherever  and 
whenever  any  country  in  the  world  gets  bitten  with  the  passion 
for  armament.  That  proposition  carries  with  it  tremendous 
corollaries;  but  if  the  league  of  nations  is  not  to  be  conceived 
of  as  upon  that  scale,  then  most  sensible  men  will  give  the  league 
of  nations  a  very  limited  and  temperate  or  else  an  acutely  sus- 
picious attention. 

A  world  control  of  armaments  implies — and  there  is  no  good 
whatever  in  shirking  the  fact — some  sort  of  world  council,  some 
sort  of  pooling  of  the  naval,  military  and  air  forces  of  the 
world  under  that  council,  and  a  representation  of  the  states  of 
the  world  thereon  in  a  manner  commensurate  with  their  strength 
and  will.  This  is  going  beyond  a  league;  this  is  an  approach  to 
world  federation. 

Mr.  Belloc  declares  it  amounts  to  a  World  State,  and  the 
Fabian  Research  Committee,  in  its  league-of -nations  project, 
calls  it,  in  the  Shavian  jargon  affected  by  that  society,  a  Super- 
state. But  the  discussion  of  the  relations  between  a  central  con- 
trol with  delegated  powers  on  the  one  hand  and  of  sovereign 
states  thereunder  on  the  other  has  been  one  of  the  chief  em- 
ployments of  American  publicists  for  more  than  a  century;  and 


io6  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

a  European  writer  should  go  warily  among  terms  they  have 
long  since  technicalized  and  brought  to  a  very  keen  and  cutting 
edge. 

The  practical  man  is  far  less  interested  in  the  exact  legal 
and  terminological  value  of  this  council  or  standing  conference 
or  group  of  committees — or  whatever  the  exact  form  of  world 
control  may  be  to  which  the  plain  logic  of  human  necessity  is 
driving  mankind — than  in  the  way  that  control  will  work,  the 
powers  it  must  have,  and  the  means  by  which  it  will  keep  itself 
in  touch  with  the  general  consciousness  of  the  people  of  the 
world. 

The  present  war  has  made  nothing  more  manifest  than  that 
the  effective  control  of  militarism  must  extend  to  issues  that  are 
not  in  themselves  military.  The  development  of  war,  as  I  have 
already  pointed  out,  has  been  steadily  abolishing  the  noncom- 
batant;  modern  war  is  a  struggle  of  whole  populations,  fighting 
with  all  their  industrial  and  economic  strength,  and  an  effective 
world  control  of  food  supplies  and  of  the  supplies  of  staple 
articles  generally — of  coal,  iron,  and  the  like. 

Moreover,  a  world  control  of  war  implies  a  world  control 
of  the  causes  of  war.  Modern  wars,  it  has  been  said,  are  in- 
variably economic;  they  are  struggles  for  markets  and  raw 
material.  And  it  is  evident,  therefore,  that  a  world  control  of 
militarism  which  does  not  provide  some  substitute  for  war  set- 
tlements upon  these  questions  will  be  no  better  than  restraining 
a  suffocating  man  from  smashing  a  window  that  gives  upon 
fresh  air. 

A  world  control  of  militarism  will  lead,  it  will  be  found,  to 
a  world  control  of  shipping  and  of  the  world  distribution  of 
staples ;  to  restraint  upon  tariff  wars ;  and,  indeed,  to  a  general 
control  of  international  trade.  This  is  a  large  order,  both  jlor 
the  free  trader  and  the  tariff  reformer;  but  it  is  a  necessary 
part  of  any  scheme  for  an  effective  control  of  war. 

The  experience  of  the  Allies  confirms  this  proposition.  It  has 
been  asserted  again  and  again  that  even  now  a  league  of  nations 
exists  in  the  alliance  against  the  Central  Powers.  But  the  steady 
pressure  of  necessity  has  already  carried  the  Allies  beyond  the 
mere  League  stage,  and  it  must  ultimately  take  them  beyond 
mere  exclusive  dealing  with  their  allies.  The  attainment  of  a 
unity  of  military  command  has  been  accompanied  by  a  progres- 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  107 

sive  pooling  of  interests  and  resources,  less  conspicuous  per- 
haps, but  more  significant. 

In  matters  of  food,  coal,  metals  and  shipping  the  Allies  have 
been  forced  to  scrap,  first  in  this  instance  and  then  in  that,  the 
idea  that  they  were  separate  competing  entities. 

America  goes  easy  with  the  bacon  that  England  may  be  fed, 
and  England  will  shiver  this  winter  that  Italy  may  not  be  frozen 
out  of  the  alliance. 

Though  the  faint-hearted  gentlemen  of  the  Weak  League  of 
Nations  movements  are  assuring  us  that  the  nations  of  the 
earth  are  far  too  jealous  to  tolerate  the  slightest  infringements 
of  their  sovereign  rights,  these  poolings  are  going  on  upon  a 
tremendous  scale.  When  at  last  th.e  German  mind  is  attuned  to 
revolutionary  ideas  and  the  Hohenzollern  incubus  is  set  aside,  so 
that  a  chastened  Germany  can  come  to  the  peace  conference,  it 
is  inevitable  that  these  pooling  organizations  must  assume  a 
practically  world-wide  scope. 

However  much  Englishmen  may  dislike  Germans,  they  must 
get  back  to  some  momentary  footing  in  common,  even  if  it  is 
only  to  secure  the  economic  reinstatement  of  Belgium.  There 
must  be  some  restraint  upon  a  desperate  and  planless  resump- 
tion of  industrial  competition.  There  must  be  no  scramble  for 
food.  These  are  matters  that  will  not  be  settled  in  a  few  weeks 
or  months. 

It  is  natural  to  look  to  such  committees  of  world  control 
that  will  necessarily  be  formed  at  the  peace  conference  to  restore 
the  shattered  financial  and  economic  order,  as  bodies  that  may 
be  given  permanence  by  treaty,  that  may  be  supplemented  by 
permanent  world  committees  to  deal  with  health,  navigation, 
emigration,  and  other  general  purposes,  to  form  the  civil  ad- 
ministrative side  of  a  world  league. 

The  creation  of  a  general  sense  of  the  world  league  in  men's 
minds  through  propaganda  and  education,  and  its  embodiment 
in  political  forms,  may,  indeed,  be  rather  the  culmination  and 
recognition  of  a  process  of  human  unification  already  in  full 
progress  than  a  real  new  departure  in  human  affairs. 

From  being  a  proposed  addendum  to  human  life,  in  the  form 
of  a  court  of  jurists,  the  league  of  nations  has  now  become  the 
outline  of  a  broad  and  hopeful  scheme  for  the  reconstruction  of 
international  relationships  upon  a  sound  and  enduring  basis.  It 


io8  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

is  a  new  world  policy.  It  is  a  scheme  that  may  inaugurate  a 
new  and  happier  phase  in  the  troubled  history  of  mankind.  But 
at  every  step  it  demands  sacrifices  of  prepossessions. 

There  is  no  good  in  clinging  to  ideals  of  a  world  of  unre- 
stricted free  trade  and  laissez  faire  if  the  world  controls  of  the 
league  of  nations  are  to  come  into  existence;  it  is  equally  un- 
reasonable to  dream  of  schemes  of  a  self-contained  British  Em- 
pire, taxing  the  foreigner  and  economically  hostile  to  all  for- 
eigners, including  those  of  France,  Italy  and  the  United  States. 

We  must  cease  to  think  imperially  as  we  have  had  to  cease 
thinking  parochially;  and  we  must  think  now  in  terms  of  the 
peace  of  the  world.  The  league  of  nations  points  straight  to  a 
pooling  of  empires,  and  it  is  no  good  blinking  the  fact.  And, 
since  it  cannot  operate  in  an  atmosphere  tainted  by  suspicion, 
the  league  of  nations  demands  for  its  effective  operation  a 
change  in  our  diplomatic  methods. 

The  world  has  become  too  multitudinous  for  secret  under- 
standings. In  this  swarming  world  of  half-taught  crowds,  with 
its  imminent  danger  from  class  hostility  and  distrust,  govern- 
ments must  say  plainly  what  they  mean  and  stand  by  their 
declarations  unambiguously. 

It  may  at  times  be  difficult  and  tedious  to  inform  a  whole 
population  upon  the  values  of  some  international  situation,  but 
the  danger  of  misconception  and  spasmodic  crowd  action  out- 
weighs the  desire  of  the  expert  for  an  uncriticized  freedom. 
There  must  be  an  end  to  secret  diplomacy.  Nations  must  un- 
derstand their  responsibilities. 

The  welfare  of  the  world  requires  that  the  very  children  in 
the  schools  should  be  taught  the  broad  outlines  of  the  treaties 
that  bind  their  nations  into  the  mosaic  of  the  world's  peace. 
They  have  to  grow  up  understanding  and  consenting,  if  only  on 
account  of  the  grim  alternative  the  precedent  of  Russia  suggests. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  109 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  1 

A  League  of  Nations  provides  an  instrument  and  a  basis 
for  international  co-operation  which  did  not  exist  under  pre- 
war diplomatic  conditions.  International  relations  in  the  last 
century  were  continually  jeopardised  by  the  absence  of  an 
adequate  guarantee  for  international  agreements  and  of  a 
centre  for  the  unification  and  co-ordination  of  international 
action.  By  constituting  the  League  the  world  would  for  the 
first  time  have  taken  a  real  step  towards  supplying  these 
deficiencies.  We  propose  to  prove  these  statements  by  con- 
sidering certain  particular  instances  of  a  political  and 
economic  nature.  One  of  the  most  important  of  these  is  the 
international  economic  right  of  way. 

The  result  of  the  revolution  in  industry  and  means  of 
communication  in  the  last  century  was  that  to-day  there  is 
hardly  a  single  international  question  of  importance  which 
is  not  complicated  seriously  by  economic  considerations. 
The  economic  lines  of  communication,  whether  on  land  or 
sea,  have  become  increasingly  "vital"  to  the  material  ex- 
istence of  the  majority  of  states.  After  all,  the  war  itself 
has  shown  this  with  apalling  clearness,  for  whereas  the 
strategy  of  previous  wars  was  directed  mainly  to  the  cutting 
of  military  lines  of  communication,  the  present  combatants 
have  settled  down  to  a  bitter  struggle  to  cut  the  economic 
lines.  Now  war  only  illuminates,  it  does  not  create,  the  in- 
ternational forces  and  conditions  of  this  kind  which  continue 
to  operate  in  times  of  peace.  On  the  Danube  and  the  Rhine 
and  the  Scheldt;  on  the  railways  of  Austria  and  Hungary, 
of  the  Balkans,  of  Asia  Minor,  of  East  and  West  Prussia, 
even  of  tropical  Africa;  in  obscure  bays  and  harbours  of  the 
Mediterranean,  Africa,  Asia,  and  South  America,  political 
and  geographical  boundaries  have  combined  with  modern 
commerce  to  raise  the  most  acute  questions  which  may  be 
conveniently  classified  as  questions  of  economic  rights  of 
way. 

The  general  character  of  all  these  problems  is  the  same, 

*New  Statesman.  9:367-9,  392-3,  416-18,  440-1,  464-6,  July  i4-August 
18,  1917. 


no  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

and  can  be  stated  shortly.  The  geographical  and  political 
position  of  one  state  can  be  used  as  a  tremendous  weapon 
economically  against  another's  commercial  lines  of  commu- 
nication with  the  outside  world.  This  can  be  and  is  achieved 
by  a  variety  of  methods:  by  tariffs,  by  manipulation  and  dis- 
crimination of  railway  freights,  by  administrative  regulations 
as  to  the  entrance  and  transit  of  commodities,  by  tolls  and 
dues  on  river  naviganon,  by  harbour  dues  and  duties,  even 
by  sanitary  regulations.  How  widespread  and  how  dangerous 
for  the  world's  peace  and  progress  these  questions  are  may 
best  be  shown  by  some  examples.  The  free  navigation  of 
rivers  was  the  earliest  of  these  questions  which  engaged 
the  attention  of  foreign  policy.  It  is  the  most  obvious  in- 
stance of  a  question  of  economic  right  of  way.  A  riparian 
state  which  commands  the  mouth  of  a  navigable  river  can 
close  the  economic  route  to  the  sea  for  all  states  along  the 
higher  reaches  either  by  exorbitant  navigation  dues  or  by 
allowing  the  river  to  become  unnavigable.  The  matter  has 
forced  itself  upon  the  attention  of  statesmen  in  many  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  world,  but  particularly  upon  the  Danube, 
the  Scheldt,  the  Rhine,  the  Vistula  and  the  Congo.  In  fact, 
the  last  century  saw  the  principle  of  an  economic  right  of 
way  on  navigable  rivers  established  for  a  particular  case  by 
the  Treaty  of  Vienna  and  gradually  extended  to  nearly  all 
the  navigable  rivers  of  the  world.  The  control  of  narrow 
straits  or  of  inter-oceanic  canals  produces  cases  of  precisely 
the  same  nature  as  that  of  navigable  rivers.  Thus  the  ques- 
tion of  Constantinople  derives  its  international  importance 
from  the  fact  that  -the  political  control  of  the  Straits  vitally 
affects  the  economic  communications  of  Russia  and  Rumania. 
Again,  the  problems  raised  by  the  Suez  and  Panama  Canals 
and  their  political  control  have  differed  from  that  of  Con- 
stantinople not  in  kind  but  only  in  degree. 

Railway  communications  produce  international  problems  of 
the  same  nature.  The  whole  Balkan  question  has  been  complicated 
and  embittered  by  conflicting  attempts  to  bar  and  to  open 
economic  rights  of  way.  This  is  perhaps  most  obvious  in  the 
relations  of  Austria  and  Serbia.  The  "economic  dependence" 
of  Serbia  and  Austria,  of  which  so  much  has  been  written, 
comes  from  the  power  which  her  geographical  position  con- 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  in 

fers  upon  Austria  of  controlling  the  entrance  and  exit  of 
commodities  to  and  from  Serbia. 

So  universal  are  these  political  and  economic  forces  that 
if  we  look  across  the  world  to  another  continent,  we  see  the 
same  causes  producing  similar  problems.  In  South  America, 
Argentina  to-day  controls,  and  Argentina  and  Brazil  will 
to-morrow  control,  the  economic  communications  of  the  Re- 
public of  Paraguay  with  the  Atlantic  and  Europe,  and  this 
circumstance  had  produced  an  international  situation  which 
is  similar  and  is  subject  to  the  same  treatment  as  that  in  the 
Balkans. 

The  conditions  which  we  have  been  considering  have  in 
the  past  been  one  of  the  most  prolific  causes  of  "international 
unrest."  They  have  been  at  once  the  cause  and  the  weapon 
of  the  bitterest  international  hostility.  In  Constantinople, 
Belgrade,  Vienna,  Berlin,  and  in  Africa,  rivers  and  railways 
have  again  and  again  served  as  a  kind  of  conducting  wire  of 
fear  and  suspicion,  and  illicit  international  ambitions.  And 
as  the  world  becomes  more  and  more  completely  industrial- 
ized, so  will  these  questions  of  economic  communications 
become  more  and  more  vital  and  dangerous.  There  can  be 
no  peace  in  the  world  if  half  the  nations  live  in  fear  of  the 
arteries  of  their  commerce  being  cut  or  obstructed,  while  the 
other  half  are  occupied  with  plotting  and  planning  to  cut 
and  obstruct  them. 

Moreover,  as  the  case  of  Poland  will  show,  as  long  as  this 
problem  remains  unsolved,  it  is  impossible  to  reconstruct 
Europe  politically  and  nationally  on  a  just  or  sound  basis. 
The  whole  problem  can,  of  course,  only  be  solved  if  co- 
operation takes  the  place  of  hostility  and  rivalry  in  inter- 
national relations.  But  in  conditions  so  complex  as  those  of 
international  relations,  co-operation  will  never  persist  unless 
the  broad  principles  of  international  action  are  definitely  for- 
mulated and  means  of  putting  the  principles  into  action  are 
consciously  provided.  A  League  of  Nations  alone  would 
provide  such  means. 
*  **********  * 

If  in  future  even  a  moderate  amount  of  co-operation  is  to 
take  the  place  of  hostility  and  aggression  in  international 
relations,  the  principle  of  the  complete  freedom  of  economic 


ii2  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

rights  of  way  must  be  recognised  and  enforced.  This  has 
already  to  a  great  extent  been  recognised  by  one  important 
and  practical  statesman.  President  Wilson  has  stated  as  one 
of  the  chief  conditions  of  a  just  and  stable  peace  the  principle 
that  "so  far  as  practicable,  every  great  people  now  struggling 
towards  a  full  development  of  its  resources  and  of  its  powers 
should  be  assured  a  direct  outlet  to  the  great  highways  of 
the  sea."  And  he  went  on  to  lay  down  this  principle  of 
policy,  that  "where  this  (the  assurance  of  a  right  of  way  to 
the  sea)  cannot  be  done  by  the  cession  of  territory,  it  no 
doubt  can  be  done  by  the  neutralisation  of  direct  rights  of 
way  under  the  general  guarantee  which  will  assure  the  peace 
itself.  With  a  right  of  comity  of  arrangement  no  nation  need 
be  shut  away  from  free  access  to  the  open  paths  of  the 
world's  commerce."  In  practice  President  Wilson's  prin- 
ciple would  have  to  be  restated  rather  more  fully  as  follows. 
Without  prejudices  to  the  right  of  each  state  to  exact  duty 
on  and  to  exercise  the  fullest  administrative  control  over  the 
import  of  all  goods  for  consumption  or  use  in  its  territory, 
there  should  be  a  guarantee  of  complete  freedom  for  goods 
in  transit.  That  freedom  would  include  freedom  from  duties 
and  from  hostile  discrimination  by  administrative  measures, 
e.  g.,  the  manipulation  of  railway  freights.  This  princple 
of  international  policy  would  imply  a  guarantee  of  universal 
international  right  of  way  of  rivers  and  railways.  As  soon 
as  the  facts  and  the  principle  are  stated  in  this  way,  it  is 
clear  how  impossible  of  achievement  they  would  be  under 
the  old  internationl  and  diplomatic  system,  and  how  on  the 
other  hand  a  League  of  Nations  would  make  their  achieve- 
ment possible.  Three  conditions  are  necessary  if  this  gen- 
eral principle  is  to  be  translated  into  practice.  The  guarantee 
must  be  neither  a  vague  one  nor  a  sham;  it  must  be  a  definite 
and  joint  guarantee  of  all  the  states,  or  at  least  all  the  great 
states  of  the  world,  and  with  the  full  sanction  of  their  power 
behind  it.  Secondly,  if  the  guarantee  is  to  be  fulfilled,  it 
will  require  the  close  and  permanent  co-operation  of  the 
states  concerned.  Thirdly,  it  will  require  the  creation  of  ma- 
chinery through  which  this  co-operation  may  work.  Only 
some  sort  of  an  international  organisation  of  states  like  the 
League  of  Nations  could  fulfill  these  conditions. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  113 

The  nature  of  the  alternative  to  such  co-operation  in  a 
League  may  best  be  shown  by  returning  to  the  question  of 
Poland.  The  problem  of  the  reconstitution  of  an  autonomous 
Poland  is,  as  we  said,  one  in  which  nationality  and  economics 
play  an  equal  part.  Polish  economic  needs  stretch  out  far 
beyond  the  confines  of  geographical  nationality  to  the  sea 
at  Danzig  and  to  the  industrial  regions  of  Silesia.  No  solu- 
tion is  possible  so  long  as  the  German  Empire  and  the  new 
autonomous  Poland  are  to  be  organised  on  a  basis  of  inter- 
national competitive  hostility.  Take  the  case  of  the  north- 
ern boundary  of  the  new  Poland.  If  political  boundaries  are 
strictly  to  follow  nationality,  a  narrow  strip  of  territory  along 
the  western  bank  of  the  Vistula  from  Thorn  to  the  west  of 
Danzig  would  be  added  to  autonomous  Poland.  But  to  run 
a  narrow  strip  of  Poland  through  the  middle  of  Prussia  and 
to  expect  a  "durable  peace"  would  be  to  yield  to  the  halluci- 
nations of  either  ignorance  or  optimism.  To  propose  to  make 
West  Prussia  and  the  German  port  of  Danzig  a  part  of 
Poland,  thus  separating  East  Prussia  from  Germany,  is  an 
even  more  disastrous  fantasy.  The  alternative  is  to  leave 
West  and  East  Prussia  to  Germany,  and  this  once  more  cuts 
off  Poland  from  its  northern  economic  outlet  to  the  sea  at 
Danzig. 

Here  we  have  an  impasse  created  by  irreconcilable  ideals, 
political  and  economic.  Under  the  old  system  there  is  no 
way  out.  But  there  is  an  obvious  and  practical  solution  if 
the  League  of  Nations  and  the  principle  of  the  economic 
rights  of  way  be  established  together  with  the  means  of  put- 
ting the  principle  into  operation  which  we  have  indicated. 
For  there  are  two  main  conditions  of  a  reconciliation  between 
the  political  and  economical  ideals  and  needs:  (i)  a  guar- 
antee of  political  rights  for  such  Poles  as  would  remain 
within  the  Prussian  province  of  Germany  and  for  such  Ger- 
mans as  would  be  included  in  the  autonomous  Poland;  (2) 
the  guarantee  of  an  economic  right  of  way  on  the  Vistula 
and  the  German  railways  to  Danzig  and  the  sea  for  Poland. 
Both  these  conditions  can  be  fulfilled  by  a  League  of  Nations, 
but  only  if  machinery  be  provided  by  which  Poland  can  bring 
for  decision  before  an  authoritative  international  body,  like 
the  Commission  and  Tribunal  suggested,  any  complaint  that 


ii4  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

the  guarantee  of  an  economic  right  of  way  is  not  being  car- 
ried out. 


The  present  war  is  due  to  so  great  variety  of  different 
causes  that  it  is  a  dangerous  thing  to  isolate  any  one  of  them 
and  say,  "The  war  is  due  to  that."  But  few  persons  with 
any  knowledge  of  international  relations  during  the  last  thirty 
years  will  deny  that  deep  down  in  the  origins  of  the  pres- 
ent conflict  the  question  of  overseas  possessions,  of  the  con- 
trol, economic  or  political,  of  Africa  and  Asia,  played  a  very 
large  part. 

There  can  be  no  peace  in  the  world  so  long  as  the  com- 
petitive and  exclusive  policy  with  regard  to  overseas  posses- 
sions holds  sway.  Political  control  in  Africa  and  Asia  is 
very  unequally  divided  between  the  Great  Powers  of  the 
world.  If  that  political  control  is  used  through  protective 
tariffs,  concessions,  and  other  exclusive  privileges  (including 
similar  methods  applied  in  spheres  of  influence)  to  exclude  par- 
ticipation of  other  countries  in  the  economic  privileges  and 
opportunities,  the  economic  struggle  will  inevitably  be  trans- 
ferred first  to  the  field  of  diplomacy  and  finally  to  the  field  of 
battle.  Englishmen  are  naturally  slow  to  see  this  because  of 
the  position  of  their  Empire  in  the  world.  And  it  would  be 
folly  to  imagine  that  this  is  a  question  merely  between  Ger- 
many and  the  possessory  Powers.  If  the  policy  of  exclusive- 
ness  and  competition  continue,  it  will  not  be  long  before  the 
financial,  industrial,  and  commercial  interests  in  America, 
Italy,  and  Japan  are  claiming  their  right  to  places  in  the  sun 
— in  fact,  the  recent  history  of  Japan  shows  that  the  process 
has  already  started. 

On  the  other  hand,  history  shows  that  a  policy  of  co- 
operation and  equal  privileges — a  policy  embodied  in  the 
open  door,  free  trade  in  dependencies,  international  control 
by  financial  national  groups  in  association  with  their  own 
government  as  in  China — does  not  involve  any  sacrifice  of 
the  economic  interests  of  the  European  state.  It  is  true  that 
as  pursued  in  the  past  it  has  unquestionably  often  involved 
the  sacrifice  of  the  interests  of  the  Asiatic  and  African  peo- 
ples. The  financial  and  commercial  exploitation  of  Africa 
and  China  is  a  page  in  its  history  which  Western  civilisation 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  115 

can  hardly  view  with  pride  or  even  complacency.  If  Euro- 
pean commerce,  finance,  and  industry  are  going  to  find  some 
means  of  dividing  among  themselves  the  fields  for  profit  in 
Asia  and  Africa,  or  if  they  are  going  to  co-operate  in  pro- 
moting their  interests  in  those  fields,  then  it  is  essential  that 
some  method  should  exist  for  representing  and  protecting 
the  interests  of  the  inhabitants  of  Asia  and  Africa. 

These  considerations  indicate  both  why  the  old  attempts 
at  international  co-operation  finally  failed  and  how  the 
League  of  Nations  would  afford  a  greater  probability  of  suc- 
cess. What  was  lacking  under  the  old  system  was  against 
any  adequate  guarantee.  Take  the  case  of  China  for  instance. 
Here  a  right  principle  of  policy  had  been  laid  down,  embodied 
in  the  "open  door"  and  the  "most  favored  nation"  clause. 
Under  this  principle  no  European  nation  should  obtain  any 
exclusive  economic  privilege.  But  there  was  no  adequate 
guarantee  behind  this  arrangement.  It  rested  not  upon  a 
common  international  agreement  to  which  the  parties  were 
definitely  and  jointly  pledged,  but  upon  isolated  treaties  be- 
tween the  several  Powers  and  China  and  the  bare  ennuncia- 
tion  of  policy  by  statesmen  in  their  speeches.  Again,  even 
when,  as  in  the  Congo  Treaty,  joint  action  was  taken,  and 
the  principle  was  maintained  in  practice. 

The  League  provides  means  of  meeting  both  these  dif- 
ficulties. In  the  first  place  it  can  lay  down  definitely  the 
principle  to  regulate  the  economic  relations  of  the  Powers 
in  Asia  and  Africa.  The  principle  must  make  impossible  the 
competition  for  exclusive  economic  privileges.  That  implies 
a  guarantee  of  the  Open  Door  and  Free  Trade  in  Africa  and 
Asia,  and  a  regularised  system  of  common  action  in  finance, 
railway  construction,  etc.,  on  the  model  of  the  Sextuple  Syn- 
dicate in  China.  And  it  should  be  remarked  that  the  old 
principles  of  the  Open  Door  and  Free  Trade  would  require 
under  modern  conditions  the  adoption  of  a  supplementary 
principle  of  international  economic  policy — namely,  an  agree- 
ment through  which  an  equitable  allocation  and  distribution 
of  tropical  raw  materials  would  be  assured  to  all  industrial 
nations.  Behind  this  agreement  would  be  the  full  guarantee 
of  the  League  and  the  sanction  of  its  collective  power.  And 
being  a  permanent  alliance  and  association  of  states,  the 


ii6  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

League  would  be  able  to  create  the  permanent  machinery 
necessary  for  seeing  that  the  provisions  were  carried  out  in 
detail. 

*  *~*  *  *  *  :!:  *  *  *  *  * 

Everyone  can  see  now  that  if  questions  of  nationality,  ter- 
ritory, colonies,  and  trade  are  not  handled  in  a  manner  very 
different  from  that  in  which  the  world  was  content  to  ap- 
proach them  before  the  war,  history  will  tragically  repeat 
itself.  There  are  two  alternative  directions  in  which  policy 
can  move,  one  of  international  hostility  and  the  other  of  in- 
ternational co-operation,  and  a  League  of  Nations  can  alone 
provide  a  firm  basis  for  the  latter.  But  there  are  other  re- 
gions of  international  relationship  in  which  the  Nemesis  of 
international  hostilities  is  not  so  certain  nor  the  need  for  co- 
operation so  clearly  insistent,  but  yet  in  which  the  benefits 
to  the  world  of  close  joint  action  between  states  through  a 
League  can  be  shown  to  be  enormous.  In  this  article  we 
propose  to  consider  one  or  two  of  these  obscurer  instances. 

When  the  Prime  Minister  of  France  spoke  the  other  day 
of  "the  League  of  Nations  which  is  organising  itself  before 
our  eyes,"  he  referred  no  doubt  to  the  Alliance  of  the  Powers 
of  the  Entente.  The  thought  had  already  found  expression 
in  America.  In  the  organisation  of  this  Alliance,  it  seems, 
we  have  already  the  beginnings  of  a  League.  It  is  worth 
while  pausing  for  a  moment  and  endeavoring  in  as  detached 
a  frame  of  mind  as  possible  to  compare  the  international 
structure  of  to-day  with  that  of  August,  1914.  It  is  difficult 
to  be  quite  certain  that  one  is  correct  as  to  the  numbers,  but 
there  are,  we  believe,  eleven  sovereign  states  in  the  Alliance. 
These  states  between  them  control  about  five-sevenths  of  the 
territory  of  Europe,  half  Asia,  and  the  whole  of  the  con- 
tinents of  North  America,  Africa  and  Australia.  In  other 
words,  they  control  about  35,000,000  square  miles  out  of  the 
total  50,000,000  square  miles  of  territory  (excluding  the  Polar 
Regions)  of  the  world.  And  if  you  look  at  their  existing 
organisation  you  might  be  pardoned  the  boast  that  here 
already  is  the  United  States  of  the  World  in  embryo,  For 
history  can  show  no  example  of  independent  states  welded 
into  closer  or  more  highly  organised  co-operation.  Military, 
economic,  and  even  the  details  of  internal  administration  are 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  117 

settled  in  a  continuous  series  of  conferences  in  which  the 
states  are  represented  by  their  highest  executive  officers  and 
by  the  permanent  officials  of  government  departments.  The 
sovereignty  of  these  states  is  entangled  in  and  restricted  by 
a  network  of  reciprocal  international  agreements  which  deal 
with  every  imaginable  subject,  from  the  right  of  the  in- 
dividual state  to  make  peace  to  the  right  of  its  subjects  to 
dispose  of  their  oranges.  The  whole  of  the  communications 
in  the  vast  area  under  the  control  of  the  Alliance — the  rail- 
ways, ships,  road  transport,  even  aerial  transport — is  gradu- 
ally being  brought  completely  under  state  control,  and  is 
then  used  not  for  the  use  of  this  state  or  of  that  state  but  to 
supply  the  needs  of  the  Alliance.  In  the  same  way  the  com- 
modities needed  by  the  Alliance  have  to  a  great  extent  been 
internationalised,  and  it  is  hardly  an  exaggeration  to  say  that 
the  whole  output  of  the  word's  staple  food  products  and 
metals  is  taken  up  into  the  hands  of  this  world  state  and  dis- 
tributed as  occasion  requires  to  such  parts  of  it — Britain,  for 
instance,  or  France  or  Italy — which  for  economic  and  indus- 
trial purposes  are  federal  divisions. 

Here,  then,  is  a  League  of  Nations  with  a  system  of  in- 
ternational government  so  advanced  and  so  highly  organised 
that  not  even  the  most  optimistic  internationalist  would  three 
years  ago  have  imagined  it  practicable  this  side  of  the  mil- 
lenium.  With  this  Federation  of  the  World  before  his  eyes, 
no  one  will  be  able  to  say  again  that  international  agree- 
ments are  useless,  that  international  co-operation  is  impos- 
sible, or  that  international  government  is  a  chimera.  The 
only  question  remains  whether  man  is  so  ferocious  an  animal 
that  he  will  build  up  this  enormous  system  of  international 
co-operation  for  the  purposes  of  war  and  will  refuse  or  allow 
his  rulers  to  refuse  to  employ  it  for  the  purposes  of  peace. 
A  few  examples  will  show  how  long  the  necessity  for  such  a 
League  of  Nations  for  the  purposes  of  peace  has  existed. 

International  co-operation  for  industrial  and  economic 
purposes  in  times  of  peace  is,  of  course,  no  new  thing.  The 
Universal  Postal  Union,  the  Telegraphic  Unions,  the  Rail- 
way Unions  and  other  organisations  are  all  examples  of 
Unions  of  States  for  the  purpose  of  improving  international 
communications  through  international  administration,  The 


ii8  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

International  Institute  of  Agriculture  was  created  to  perform 
the  same  function  for  the  world's  production  and  supply  of 
food.  Nearly  all  of  them  originated  in  the  minds  of  "inter- 
nationalists" who  hardly  escaped  the  popular  title  of  cranks. 
Their  history,  which  extends  back  nearly  three-quarters  of 
a  century,  is  one  of  uninterrupted  success.  But  these  efforts 
after  international  co-operation  through  unions  of  states  have 
always  suffered  from  one  great  difficulty.  The  Unions  were 
effected  for  specific  purposes,  for  arranging  the  international 
postal  system,  or  for  promoting  the  interests  of  agriculture. 
To  carry  out  this  purpose  a  permanent  organ  of  international 
government  was  created  by  treaty,  composed  of  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  signatory  powers.  These  little  islands  of  inter- 
nationalism were  dotted  about — at  Berne  or  Rome  or  some 
other  town — in  the  great  sea  of  European  nationalism. 
There  they  were  left  forgotten,  if  indeed  they  had  ever  been 
remembered.  It  is  only  because  the  officers  who  represented 
the  different  states  upon  them  were  keen  upon  their  work 
that  they  achieved  much — incomplete  obscurity.  But  their 
success  was  continually  hampered  by  the  complete  lack  of 
co-ordination  in  international  effort,  by  the  want  of  any  cen- 
tre for  international  co-operation  on  a  large  scale.  This  is 
most  obvious  in  the  history  of  the  International  Institute  of 
Agriculture.  The  Institute  was  created  by  International 
Treaty  in  1905  entirely  owing  to  the  imagination  and  perti- 
nacity of  an  American,  Mr.  Lubin.  Its  work  was  to  be, 
besides  study  and  publication,  the  elaboration  and  submission 
for  the  approval  of  Governments  of  "measures  for  the  pro- 
tection of  common  interests  of  farmers  and  for  improvement 
of  their  condition."  The  Institute  has  undoubtedly  accom- 
plished extremely  useful  work  in  the  collection  and  publica- 
tion of  information,  but  its  most  fervid  admirer  would  not 
deny  that  it  has  accomplished  nothing  in  its  twelve  years  of 
existence  compared  with  what  the  organisation  of  the  Al- 
liance has  accomplished  in  the  sphere  of  international  agri- 
cultural production  and  distribution.  And  a  very  little  study 
of  the  subject  will  convince  anyone  that  international  action 
and  co-operation  with  regard  to  agricultural  products  is  just 
as  necessary  in  time  of  peace  as  in  time  of  war.  Thus  the 
Italian  Government  in  1905  drew  attention  to  the  immense 


A  LEAGUE  QF  NATIONS  119 

benefits  which  would  result  from  co-operation  between 
states  for  agricultural  insurance.  A  large  reduction  of  pre- 
miums could  only  be  attained  by  extending  the  area  of  in- 
surance— for  the  probability,  e.g.,  of  a  drought  occurring  in 
two  widely  separated  countries  at  the  same  time  is  small — 
and  this  could  only  be  done  by  international  action.  The 
whole  crops  of  a  country  could  be  insured,  and  this  would 
require  a  states  enterprise,  after  which  the  states  enterprises 
should  be  federated.  In  1905  such  a  suggestion  sounded 
almost  Utopian,  but  it  is  primitive  compared  to  some  of  the 
international  financial  and  industrial  operations  of  1917. 
Again,  the  Italian  Government  in  the  same  year  proposed 
international  organisation  against  rings,  monopolies,  and 
speculative  dealings  in  staple  agricultural  products,  for  such 
operations  have  a  disastrous  effect  not  only  upon  the  con- 
sumers but  upon  the  producers,  and  they  could  only  be  dealt 
with  effectually  from  joint  international  action.  Finally,  in 
1914,  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  U.  S.  A. 
passed  a  resolution  instructing  their  delegate  at  Rome  to  take 
steps  to  obtain,  if  possible,  a  Conference  on  Freights  and  the 
Establishment  of  an  International  Commission  on  Freights. 
The  important  effect  of  the  movements  and  manipulation  of 
transport  charges  upon  the  price  of  agricultural  products  has 
been  brought  home  to  most  people  during  the  war.  There  is 
no  possibility  of  dealing  with  freights  in  the  interests  of 
producers  and  consumers  except  by  international  co-opera- 
tion and  regulation.  Mr.  Lubin  himself  had  long  ago  seen 
this,  and  his  idea  was  that  the  International  Institute  of 
Agriculture  should  lead  up  to  the  establishment  of  a  perma- 
nent International  Freights  Tribunal  or  Commission, 
modelled  upon  the  Inter-States  Commerce  Commission  of  the 
U.  S.  A.,  and  entrusted  with  definite  powers  of  regulating 
freights  for  food  products.  The  action  of  the  two  Houses  of 
the  American  Legislature  was  a  hesitating  step  in  this  direc- 
tion. 

Now,  whatever  be  the  merits  of  these  particular  schemes, 
one  thing  is  clear.  There  are  enormous  possibilities  of  ad- 
vantage to  the  world  in  international  co-operation  and  ad- 
ministration with  regard  to  agricultural  products.  If  those 
possibilities  were  realised,  the  effect  upon  the  material  pros- 


120  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

parity  of  the  world  would  travel  far  beyond  the  ultimate 
dreams  of  the  most  Utopian  dreamer.  For  few  people  re- 
member, if  they  are  born  and  bred  in  an  industrial  city,  that 
the  whole  population  of  the  world  is  still  composed  of  con- 
sumers of  agricultural  products,  and  an  immense  majority  of 
its  inhabitants  are  still  either  cultivators  or  herdsmen  or 
shepherds.  But  the  nineteenth  century  with  its  revolution  in 
transport  and  trade  converted  agriculture  from  a  national 
into  an  international  industry.  National  regulation  of  the  dis- 
tribution and  transport  of  agricultural  products,  even  national 
organisation  of  agricultural  production  and  insurance,  is  to- 
day an  anachronism.  In  these  matters,  it  is  not  the  inter- 
nationalist who  is  a  dreamer  living  in  the  future,  but  the 
nationalist  who  is  a  dreamer  living  in  the  past.  But  before 
the  war  came  and  forced  Governments  of  the  Entente  to 
face  either  the  facts  or  defeat,  only  a  few  groups  of  financiers 
and  capitalists  in  each  country  realised  the  truth  that  national 
organisation  of  production  and  distribution  is  out  of  date, 
and  they  acted  upon  it  with  great  benefit  to  their  own 
pockets. 

Now  the  League  would  be  an  Alliance  for  the  purpose 
of  peace  of  the  same  kind  as  existing  alliances  for  purposes 
of  war.  It  would  provide  those  elements  which  the  isolated 
international  bodies  lack.  It  would  be  the  centre  for  Inter- 
national action.  The  Institute  would  be  its  scientific  and  de- 
liberative organ  which  would  study  and  draft  projects  of  in- 
ternational insurance  or  international  control  of  the  distribu- 
tion of  agricultural  products.  These  projects  would  no  longer 
be  transmitted  to  and  filed  in  the  pigeon-holes  of  European 
chancelleries.  They  would  immediately  be  submitted  to  the 
Council  of  the  League  as  definite  proposals  for  international 
agreement  and  action.  And  the  League  would  perform  an- 
other most  necessary  function  in  co-ordinating  the  work  of 
different  international  bodies  which  have  already  sprung  up 
to  meet  actual  international  needs.  Take,  for  instance,  this 
question  of  the  control  of  the  distribution  of  agricultural 
products.  It  requires,  as  the  American  Houses  of  Parlia- 
ment have  seen,  international  action.  But  it  is  not  a  question 
which  can  be  confined  to  agriculture.  It  forms  part  of  the 
larger  problem  of  inter-state  co-operation  for  the  organisa- 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  121 

tion  and  regulation  of  international  communications  and 
transport.  But  so  insistent  is  this  problem  that,  as  we  saw 
in  a  previous  article,  international  organs  like  the  Railway 
Unions  have  already  been  created  for  dealing  with  some  sides 
of  it,  and  we  indicated  how  the  League  could  with  advantage 
develop  the  existing  organisation.  It  is,  however,  absurd  that 
the  Institute  should  be  dealing  with  one  corner  of  the  prob- 
lem at  Rome,  the  Railway  Union  with  another  corner  at 
Berne,  and  the  Danube  Commission  with  yet  a  third  at  Ga- 
latz,  with  no  link  between  them  to  give  space  and  strength 
to  their  efforts.  Once  the  League  is  formed,  and  once  men 
feel  that  it  is  a  real  alliance  for  the  purposes  of  peace,  we  have 
in  its  Council  a  means  of  uniting  and  co-ordinating  these 
scattered  international  efforts.  The  Institute  of  Agriculture 
would  then  combine  with  the  Permanent  International  Com- 
mission on  Rights  of  Way  (and  therefore  with  all  the  inter- 
national bodies  dealing  with  communication)  to  work  out  a 
scheme  for  the  development  and  control  of  international 
communications.  The  possibilities  of  such  action  are  so 
illimitable  for  the  material  prosperity  of  the  world  that  the 
mere  idea  of  mentioning  them  in  cold  journalistic  print  makes 
us  shudder  before  the  inevitable  shower  of  epithets  like 
"dreams"  and  "Utopias."  But,  after  all,  the  whole  of  the 
future  is  to-day  nothing  but  a  dream,  and  its  depends  upon 
ourselves  whether  it  is  to  be  a  pleasant  dream  or  a  night- 
mare. 
***********  * 

The  idea  of  a  League  has  naturally  not  been  allowed  to 
grow  up  and  flourish  without  being  subjected  to  criticism, 
objections,  and  attacks.  A  curious  and  enlightening  fact  will 
very  soon  become  apparent  to  anyone  who  reads  the  hostile 
critics  with  any  detachment.  Leaving  on  one  side  all  those 
objections  which  are  concerned  with  details  of  the  various 
schemes — objections  which  are  often  valuable  and  instructive 
— and  ignoring  objections  which  are  merely  frivolous, 
ignorant,  or  ill-tempered,  he  will  find  that  all  the  serious 
criticism  centers  about  a  single  point.  That  point  is  the 
value  of  the  League's  guarantee. 

The  fact  that  nearly  all  serious  objections  about  this  point 
as  to  the  guarantee  is  both  curious  and  enlightening.  The 


122  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

reason  is  this.  The  fundamental  idea  in  the  schemes  of  a 
League  of  Nations  is  itself  the  provision  of  an  adequate  in- 
ternational guarantee,  and  as  we  have  repeatedly  argued  in  the 
preceding  articles  the  fact  that  the  League  would  provide  a  new 
basis  for  co-operation  among  nations  is  such  a  guarantee.  Thus 
the  critics  and  the  supporters  of  a  League  both  at  least  agree 
in  this,  that  the  problem  of  international  reconstruction 
turns  upon  the  possibility  of  providing  an  adequate  guaran- 
tee for  international  agreements.  What  divides  the  critic 
from  the  supporter  is  little  else  than  the  difference  between 
optimism  and  pessimism  or  between  hope  and  despair — for 
the  one,  concentrating  upon  the  repeated  instances  of  inter- 
national bad  faith  and  broken  treaties,  is  unwilling  ever  again 
to  believe  in  the  efficacy  of  international  agreements,  while 
the  other  hopes  to  find  in  the  failures  of  the  past  a  lesson  for 
the  future. 

In  the  first  place  the  critics  too  often  demand  of  a  League 
of  Nations  what  no  conceivable  international  system  could 
under  any  circumstances  give  us,  namely,  certainty  as  to  the 
future.  Let  us  take  a  concrete  case.  What  we  all  desire  is 
the  certainty  that  in  future  the  independence  of  Belgium  and 
other  small  states  shall  be  safeguarded  against  aggression. 
No  League  of  Nations  is  ever  going  to  give  us  that  certainty, 
but  then  equally  nothing  else  ever  will.  Nobody  has  ever 
suggested  or  can  suggest  an  international  arrangement  at  the 
end  of  the  war  which  will  make  certain  that  a  successful 
attempt  against  the  independence  of  Belgium  will  not  be 
made  in  1930.  But  the  critics  too  often  demand  of  the  League 
of  Nations  what  they  cannot  possibly  provide  themselves. 
The  truth  is  that  much  misconception  is  caused  by  this  loose 
thinking  about  the  word  guarantee.  Whatever  arrangement 
of  the  affairs  of  nations  be  made  when  peace  comes,  it  can- 
not give  us  any  certainty,  it  will  only  at  most  make  it  more 
or  less  probable  that  we  shall  attain  our  ends. 

Whether  the  League  of  Nations  be  formed  or  not,  the 
world  of  states,  its  peace,  stability,  progress,  and  righteous- 
ness, will  depend  upon  international  treaties  and  agreements. 
And  ultimately  every  agreement  must  depend  upon  the  faith 
and  good  faith  of  the  parties  to  it.  The  ultimate  guarantee 
of  a  League  of  Nations,  as  of  any  other  future  international 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  123 

arrangement,  must  consist  for  us  in  our  own  good  faith  and 
our  trust  in  the  good  faith  of  others.  The  whole  question  is 
a  relative  one,  for  it  concerns  our  belief  in  the  probability  of 
obtaining  conditions  under  which  states  will  keep  their 
promises.  Now,  in  this  sense  it  can  be  argued  reasonably 
that  a  League  will  create  conditions  which  did  not  exist 
before  the  war  and  which  will  increase  the  probability  of  in- 
ternational agreements  being  respected.  In  the  first  place, 
the  treaty  which  establishes  the  League  will  create  a  perma- 
nent union  of  states  for  certain  specific  purposes  of  inter- 
national co-operation.  The  agreement  will  not  only  specifi- 
cally define  the  rights  and  obligations  of  the  different  states, 
but  the  measures  to  be  taken  to  ensure  that  the  obligations 
are  fulfilled.  Now,  incredible  though  it  may  appear  to  per- 
sons who  are  not  intimately  acquainted  with  the  details  of 
international  history,  these  elementary  guarantees  never  ex- 
isted in  the  case  of  the  most  important  international  agree- 
ments. Even  where  several  great  states  signed  treaties  upon 
which  the  peace  of  Europe  obviously  depended,  their  obliga- 
tions have  not  been  clearly  defined.  It  is  the  rarest  thing 
in  the  world  to  find  any  mention  in  a  treaty  of  the  steps  to  be 
taken  to  ensure  compliance  with,  or  performance  of,  its 
terms. 

The  League  of  Nations  does  create  and  define  a  joint 
obligation,  and  therefore  it  may  correctly  be  said  to  create 
a  guarantee  which  did  not  exist  before  the  war. 

Thus  the  difference  between  the  critic  and  the  supporter  of  a 
League  may,  as  we  said,  be  reduced  to  the  difference  be- 
tween pessimism  and  optimism.  The  critic  overwhelmed  by 
the  spectacle  of  international  lawlessness  and  bad  faith  de- 
spairs over  international  law,  and  swears  never  again  to  trust 
to  an  international  treaty.  The  other  sees  that  the  cure  for 
lawlessness  is  not  less  law  but  more  law,  that  the  cure  for 
broken  treaties  is  more  and  better  treaties,  and  that  the  cure 
for  bad  faith  i?  more  faith. 


124  SELECTED  ARTICLES 


WHAT  A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  SHALL  BE1 

The  conviction  has  dawned  that  there  is  a  morality  of  states 
as  truly  as  a  morality  of  persons ;  and  that  the  whole  Macchiavel- 
lian  scheme  of  diplomacy — of  mutual  lying  and  cheating  and 
outwitting —  is  an  outrage  to  our  human  decencies.  In  the  light 
of  the  new  conviction,  we  see  the  state  as,  in  its  true  nature,  an 
instrument  of  human  welfare.  Either  it  is  that  or  out  it  must 
go.  In  all  sorts  of  ways  we  are  impatient  to-day  of  the  ex- 
ploitations. We  are  increasingly  refusing  to  allow  the  adult  to 
exploit  the  child;  the  man,  the  woman;  the  capitalist,  the  laborer. 
And  in  the  same  measure  we  are  refusing  to  accept  the  notion 
that  a  state,  just  because  it  is  a  state,  has  the  privilege  of  gain- 
ing its  special  weal  out  of  the  woe  of  its  neighbors. 

We  are,  in  short,  fashioning  a  new  philosophy  of  statehood, 
a  philosophy  which,  in  the  event,  will  be  as  epoch-making  as  the 
Christian  repudiation  of  the  older  group-morality  view  that  it  is 
perfectly  justifiable  to  hate  one's  enemies.  It  is  the  philosophy 
which  regards  the  state  as  serving  best  its  own  welfare  when  it 
serves  the  welfare  of  the  world  of  states.  It  is  the  philosophy 
of  the  cooperative  as  over  against  the  antogonistic  state,  of  the 
state  as  member  of  a  generous  fellowship  of  states.  It  is  the 
philosophy  which  had  its  glimmers  of  official  expression  when 
the  United  States  gave  back  Cuba  to  the  Cubans;  when  the 
United  States  returned  the  Boxer  indemnity;  when  President 
Wilson  refused  to  permit  this  country  to  join  the  capitalistic 
enslavement  of  China  through  the  Six  Power  Loan;  when  the 
same  President  refused  to  give  way  to  the  cries  of  concession 
hunters  and  exploiters  to  "intervene"  in  torn  and  revolutionary 
Mexico.  It  is  the  philosophy  which  had  its  expression  in  the 
grant  by  Great  Britain  of  self-government  to  the  conquered 
South  African  colonies.  It  is  the  philosophy  which  is  animating 
the  liberal  minds  of  England  in  the  settlement  of  the  Irish  ques- 
tion. It  is  the  philosophy  denied  by  annexionists,  pan-Germans, 
pan-Slavists,  British  Tories,  American  protectionists,  economic 
imperialists  the  world  over.  It  is  the  philosophy  of  political 

1  From  "World  Organization,"  by  Harry  Allen  Overstreet.  An  address 
delivered  before  the  Women's  Peace  Party  of  New  York  State,  February 
19,  1918. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  125 

generosity,  of  mutual  give  and  take,  of  international  coopera- 
tion and  integration. 

It  is  the  coming  philosophy  of  international  life.  It  is  the 
great  new  venture  of  the  human  spirit! 

If  there  were  no  such  spirit  animating  mankind,  we  might 
well  be  dubious  of  all  the  elaborated  plans  for  a  leaguing  of 
nations.  Plans  to  the  same  effect  were  made  in  the  past — plenty 
of  them;  but  no  one  of  them  ever  came  to  realization.  Truly. 
But  never  before  has  there  been  the  well-nigh  universal  convic- 
tion that  there  is  to-day;  never  before  has  the  human  mind 
recognized  so  clearly  and  so  decisively  the  point  of  error  in  its 
nationalistic  philosophies.  A  revolution,  has  taken  place  within  the 
human  spirit.  The  outer  revolution  is  now  but  a  matter  of  find- 
ing out  how  what  the  spirit  demands  is  to  be  accomplished. 

There  are  persons  who  point  the  finger  of  scorn  at  the  vari- 
ous programs  for  a  society  of  nations.  "How  thin,"  they  say; 
"How  creaking  at  the  joints;  how  lacking  all  power  to  inspire; 
how  inadequate  here  and  here  and  here !"  But  those  persons 
should  look  at  a  model  of  the  first  locomotive  ever  projected! 
What  a  spindling  caricature  compared  with  the  beautiful  giants 
of  later  days!  And  yet  the  spindling  caricature  had  within  it 
the  creative  germ  of  all  that  came  later.1 

That,  I  believe,  is  the  truly  liberating  point  of  view,  to 
realize  that  the  human  spirit  to-day  is  inventing.  Necessity  is 
ever  the  mother  of  invention.  Never  in  all  the  world's  history 
was  necessity  so  tragically  insistent!  There  must  be  a  way  of 
escape  from  the  old  mad  antagonisms.  There  must  be  a  leagu- 
ing of  nations.  How?  That,  perhaps,  we  do  not  yet  know  with 
clearness  and  finality.  We  shall  seek  as  best  we  can.  We  shall 
fail  as  often  as  not.  But  somehow,  union  of  nations  there  must 
be,  or,  in  literal  truth,  our  boys  have  died  in  vain. 

It  is  necessary  then  that  we  who  care  should  inform  our- 
selves very  accurately  as  to  this  new  project  of  a  League  of 
Nations.  If  we  are  to  help  clarify  and  equip  public  opinion,  our 
advocacy  must  be  more  than  sentimental;  it  must  be  more  than 
an  utterance  of  platitudes.  It  must  be  a  vigorous  and  thorough 
grappling  with  the  problems  and  possibilities  of  the  interna- 
tional situation. 

*  I  am  indebted  for  this  comparison  to  some  remarks  of  Senator  Henri 
La  Fontaine. 


126  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Speaking  generally,  I  believe  it  may  be  said  that  the  thought 
of  most  of  us  regarding  an  international  organization  which  is 
to  secure  a  durable  peace  suffers  from  two  defects :  it  is  over- 
legal,  and"  it  is  overstatic.  Trained  as  we  are  in  the  conception 
that  law  is  the  great  stabilizer  of  social  life,  when  we  hear  of  a 
serious  and  apparently  irreconcilable  contention  arising  between 
two  parties,  our  first  thought  is  of  a  court  of  law  to  settle  the 
case.  Settling  the  case  means  to  us  finding  in  precisely  what 
manner  the  "law"  applies  in  the  particular  situation.  In  our  so- 
cial life,  however,  contentions  constantly  arise  to  .which  there  is 
no  accepted  body  of  law  that  can  be  applied,  as,  for  example, 
contentions  between  capital  and  labor.  In  such  instances,  with 
some  reluctance,  we  have  passed  beyond  reliance  upon  the  more 
rigorously  legal  type  of  court  and  have  developed  a  less  legal 
type  of  organization — a  board  of  arbitration.  But  even  here  the 
"court"  conception  has  still  been  predominant.  For  example, 
there  is  always  a  "case" — two  sides  in  conflict;  and  there  is  al- 
ways, too  a  tribunal  to  "hear"  the  case  and  "decide." 

It  has  been  only  with  greatest  difficulty  that  we  have  reached 
a  third  conception,  namely,  that  a  conflict  to  be  really  settled, 
must  be  settled  through  a  change  of  view  of  the  parties  them- 
selves. When  a  court  or  a  board  of  arbitration  hands  down  its 
decision,  it  usually  leaves  one  party  defeated  and  resentful. 
Where,  as  in  many  cases,  issues  are  not  clean  cut,  where  there 
is  no  unequivocal  body  of  principles  to  apply,  such  a  solution  is 
eminently  unsatisfactory.  It  is  really,  no  solution  at  all.  It  is 
simply  a  makeshift  to  keep  the  peace. 

The  salient  defect  of  the  Hague  Tribunal,  apart  from  the 
fact  that  reference  to  it  was  wholly  voluntary,  was  that  it  was 
overlegalized  to  a  degree  which  made  it  ineffective  as  a  truly 
mediating  body.  It  could  interpret  established  international  law  ; 
it  could,  to  a  degree,  make  new  international  law;  it  could  ar- 
bitrate differences  that  had  come  to  a  head,  provided  the  na- 
tions were  willing.  But  it  was  not  a  body,  in  permanent  session, 
which  could  place  its  finger  upon  the  pulse  of  nations  and  detect 
the  first  beginnings  of  international  disaffection ;  which  could 
exert  its  good  offices  continuously  through  inquiry  and  sugges- 
tion and  conciliation  until  the  disaffection  was  eased  and  the 
nations  restored  to  harmonious  relations. 

It  is  that  function  above  all  of  which  the  world  stands    in 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  127 

need.  Most  of  the  disputes  which  lead  to  war  are  of  the  so- 
called  justiciable  type,  disputes,  in  other  words,  like  treaty  in- 
terpretation or  breaches  of  international  law  for  whose  settle- 
ment there  is  a  recognized  body  of  authoritative  law  or  agree- 
ment. Most  of  the  disputes  which  lead  to  war  are  of  the  type 
for  which  there  is  no  recognized  basis  of  settlement.  To  what 
law  or  treaty  or  authoritative  agreement  could  any  court  have 
turned  in  order  to  "adjudicate"  the  long  rivalry  of  Slav  and 
Austrian  ambitions  which  came  to  a  head  finally  in  the  Serbian 
tragedy.  To  the  ordinary  mind  it  is  apparently  axiomatic  that 
if  the  Serbian  difficulty  could  only  have  been  "arbitrated,"  this 
war  would  have  been  averted.  Perhaps  so;  and  also,  perhaps 
not.  For  to  what  recognized  principles  of  adjudication  could 
the  arbitrators  have  turned?  The  conflict  was  a  long  standing 
clash  of  ambitions,  hatreds  and  suspicions,  complicated  by  almost 
hopeless  misunderstandings  superinduced  by  a  mischievious  se- 
cret diplomacy,  complicated  the  more,  too,  by  the  fact  that  back 
of  and  supporting  and  encouraging  the  nationalistic  ambitions 
were  the  competitions  of  capitalistic  groups. 

Arbitration  at  that  tragic  time  in  August  1914  might  have 
stayed  the  battles  for  a  short  period;  might  even  have  post- 
poned the  war  for  a  number  of  years.  But  no  real  settlement 
of  the  issue  was  possible  short  of  a  long  process  of  inquiry, 
mediation  and  conciliation,  a  process  open  and  known  of  all  the 
world.  •* 

The  outstanding  difference  between  the  international  plans 
hitherto  in  operation  or  proposed  and  the  typical  plans  now  pro- 
posed for  the  international  settlement  of  disputes  is  the  large 
emphasis  which  the  latter  place  upon  this  deeply  important 
process  of  conciliation.  In  all  the  plans  there  is  indeed  a  place 
for  an  international  court  whose  function  it  shall  be  to  try 
justiciable  cases.  In  all  of  the  plans  there  is  provision  as  well 
for  a  Court  of  Arbitration.  But  in  all  of  them  there  is  a  pri- 
mary insistence  upon  the  creation  of  a  permanently  functioning 
Council  of  Conciliation. 

The  second  defect  of  our  customary  thought  about  interna- 
tional organization  is  that  it  is  overstatic.  We  believe — most  of 
us — rather  naively  in  "settlements."  When  the  peace  congress 
shall  meet,  we  rather  fondly  anticipate  that  if  it  is  but  consti- 
tuted of  honest  men  of  real  intelligence,  a  plan  may  be  hit  upon 


i28  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

for  solving  once  and  for  all  the  perplexing  difficulties  about 
boundaries,  nationalities  and  so  on  that  have  kept  our  world  in 
unrest.  Our  doubts  are  not  as  to  the  possibility  of  such  a  per- 
manent settlement,  but  rather  as  to  the  possibility  of  obtaining 
peace  delegates  of  this  character. 

There  could  be  no  greater  fallacy.  What  is  chiefly  character- 
istic of  the  world  is  the  quality  of  change.  No  national  group 
maintains,  decade  after  decade,  the  same  unwavering  point  of 
view,  the  same  ambitions  or  lack  of  ambitions,  the  same  prides 
or  lack  of  prides,  the  same  pressure  of  population,  the  same 
economic  outlook.  Germany  is  a  striking  example  in  point.  The 
Germany  of  to-day  is  so  little  the  Germany  of  Goethe's  time 
that,  save  in  language  and  geography,  it  is  scarcely  recognizable 
as  the  same  land.  Much  has  transpired  in  the  world  since 
Goethe's  time — particularly  the  industrial  revolution — to  bring  to 
Germany  new  solidarities,  new  outlooks,  new  ambitions.  The 
same  is  true  of  Russia,  of  the  Balkan  States,  of  Poland  and 
Turkey.  The  same  is  true  of  the  United  States.  The  America 
of  to-day  would  be  scarcely  recognizable  by  the  men  who  fought 
for  its  deliverance  in  the  Revolution. 

The  trouble  with  the  Congress  of  Berlin  was  that  it  made  its 
decision  and  went  home.  It  expected  that  decision  to  be  good 
for  all  time.  It  had  a  naive  faith  in  the  ability  of  the  world  to 
"stay  put,"  particularly  after  the  greater  part  of  the  civilized 
world  had  bidden  it  so  to  stay.  It  provided  no  means  whereby 
its  decisions  might  be  "stretched"  to  cover  changes  in  tempers 
and  powers  that  any  one  might  easily  have  predicted  would  in- 
evitably arise.  The  Congress  of  Berlin  went  home.  And  so  in- 
stead of  controlling  the  changes,  directing  them  into  salutary- 
channels,  the  changes  more  and  more  controlled  it,  until 
flagrantly,  in  one  case  after  another,  they  set  the  august  de- 
cision of  the  Congress  flatly  at  naught. 

What  is  needed  if  decisions  are  to  live  and  operate  is  an  in- 
ternational adjusting  body  that  will  not  go  home,  that  will  be 
continuously  on  the  job.  Brailsford  has  made  this  convincingly 
clear  in  his  book  "A  League  of  Nations."  He  has  insisted  that 
there  be  an  international  body — he  calls  it  the  International  Ex- 
ecutive— not  only  permanent  but  small  enough  in  size  and  with 
a  sufficient  breadth  and  flexibility  of  powers  to  make  possible 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  129 

not  only  a  constant  alertness  to   changing  international   situa- 
tions but  an  instant  power  of  suggestion  and  mediation. 

Many  of  the  plans  proposed  neglect  this  fundamental  de- 
sideratum. They  are  constructed  in  the  spirit  of  the  conven- 
tional thought  that  all  that  is  needed  for  secure  peace  is  some 
international  body  of  reference  to  "settle"  disputes.  What  is 
needed  just  as  truly,  Brailsford  shows,  is  a  body  capable  of  as- 
sisting in  the  unsettling  of  settlements  when  old  settlements  no 
longer  adequately  apply  to  changed  conditions.  At  the  present 
time  the  only  way  of  unsettling  old  settlements  is  the  drastic 
way  of  war. 

MAIN  LINES  OF  ORGANIZATION 

The  main  lines  of  organization  of  a  League  of  Nations  are 
not  difficult  to  trace.1  There  is  first  the  criterion  of  admission  to 
the  League.  In  this  respect  two  radically  different  tendencies 
are  noticeable  among  the  plans  proposed.  There  is,  in  the  first 
place,  the  conviction  that  all  states  of  the  world  should  at  once 
be  freely  admitted  to  membership  in  the  League.  There  is,  in 
the  second  place,  the  conviction  that  League  membership  should 
be  restricted  in  the  first  instance  to  the  Great  Powers,  and  that 
other  states  should  be  admitted  only  as  these  Powers  agree. 
There  is  much  to  be  said  for  each  plan.  For  the  second,  it  may 
be  argued  that  the  leap  from  the  sheer  independence  of  sov- 
ereignty of  the  large  number  of  states,  big  and  little,  mature  and 
immature,  of  the  world,  to  the  immediate  federation  of  the  en- 
tire world  is  a  very  long  leap  indeed,  which  may  quite  easily 
prove  disastrous.  It  may  not  be  an  altogether  unwise  move, 
therefore,  to  take  the  first  step  toward  the  federation  of  the 
world  by  the  effective  leaguing  together  of  those  states  which 
are  sufficiently  similar  in  standard  and  political  ideal  to  make 
the  league  immediately  workable.  For  the  first  proposal,  it  may 
be  said,  on  the  other  hand,  that  any  initial  exclusion  from  mem- 

1  The  following  is  a  list  of  the  most  carefully  elaborated  plans:  Cen- 
tral Organization  for  a  Durable  Peace;  Fabian  Research  Committee;  Brails- 
ford's  League  of  Nations;  League  to  Enforce  Peace;  Draft  Convention  for 
a  League  of  Nations  (Recommendations  of  the  Study  Group  of  the  League 
to  Enforce  Peace);  Community  of  Nations  Pamphlet;  La  Fontaine's  Great 
Solution;  American  Peace  Society;  World  Court  League;  Cosmos;  Inter- 
national Congress  of  Women;  Proposals  for  the  Avoidance  of  War  (British 
Group;  Lord  Bryce) ;  League  of  Nations  Society;  Otlet,  World  Charter 
Organizing  the  Union  of  the  States. 


I3o  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

bership  tends  to  continue  the  old  balance  of  power  which  proved 
so  disastrous  to  the  world  in  the  past,  besides  allotting  to  the 
Great  Powers  a  leadership  that  may  easily  become  an  injustice 
to  the  remaining  states  of  the  world.  The  problem  involved  here 
is  a  real  one  which  demands  careful  thought. 

In  the  second  place,  all  the  plans  proposed  provide  for  a 
legislative  function  of  the  League.  In  some  cases  this  takes 
the  form  of  periodic  conferences  of  the  member  states  of  the 
League.  In  others,  it  takes  the  form  of  an  International  Council 
always  complete  and  in  being;  in  others,  of  International  Con- 
ferences from  time  to  time.  The  Bryce  plan  provides  for  con- 
ferences only  at  such  crucial  junctures  as  may  arise  when  states 
fail  to  abide  by  the  conditions  of  the  League.  The  unwillingness 
to  provide  for  a  permanent  or  periodic  legislative  body,  is  un- 
doubtedly a  weakness  of  the  British  plan.  Brailsford,  who  fears 
that  a  parliament  with  full  legislative  powers  would  be  too  swift 
a  leap  from  our  present  situation,  suggests  a  consultative  or  ad- 
visory parliament,  which  would,  he  believes,  eventually  develop 
into  a  true  parliament  of  the  world. 

In  the  third  place,  all  the  plans  provide  for  a  tribunal.  The 
tribunal  in  all  cases  is  of  two  kinds — a  Court  (or  Courts)  for 
the  settlement  of  justiciable  disputes;  a  Court  of  Arbitration  and 
a  Council  of  Conciliation  for  investigation  and  recommendation 
with  reference  to  non- justiciable  disputes. 

In  the  fourth  place,  all  the  plans  deal  with  the  question 
whether  the  decisions  of  the  Court  or  recommendations  of  the 
Council  are  to  be  binding  or  not.  In  most  plans,  acceptance  of 
the  decisions  of  the  Court  (justiciable  issues)  is  compulsory. 
In  practically  all  plans,  acceptance  of  the  recommendations  of 
the  Council  of  Counciliation  (non- justiciable)  is  voluntary.  In 
the  fifth  place  all  the  plans  indicate  the  type  of  sanctions  that 
are  to  support  the  decisions  and  recommendations.  In  most 
plans,  failure  to  refer  a  dispute  subjects  the  recalcitrant  nation 
to  the  military  or  economic  pressure  of  the  League;  in  some 
plans  such  failure  subjects  it  simply  to  the  condemnation  of 
world  public  opinion.  In  some  plans  failure  to  accept  the  de- 
cision of  the  Court  subjects  the  recalcitrant  nation  to  the  mil- 
itary or  economic  pressure  of  the  League.  In  other  plans,  states, 
having  referred  a  dispute,  are  at  liberty  to  accept  or  reject  as 
they  please. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  131 

Perhaps  the  deepest  cleavage  in  principle  among  the  plans 
for  a  world  League  is  upon  the  question  whether  physical  force 
(military  or  economic  or  both)  or  moral  force  is  to  be  em- 
ployed as  a  sanction.  And  yet  it  would  seem  as  if  there  ought 
be  no  difference  of  view  on  this  matter.  Everyone,  save  an  ex- 
ceedingly small  body  of  extremists — and  even  they  are  not  con- 
sistent— will  admit  that  force  may  be  legitimately  employed  in 
restraint  or  correction.  For  example,  in  ordinary  social  life, 
force  (violence)  is  illegitimately  employed  when  it  is  used  for 
personal  or  interested  ends,  as  when  a  man  strikes  another  in 
wrath  or  hatred,  or  to  secure  for  himself  the  other's  posses- 
sions. When,  on  the  other  hand,  a  policeman  forcibly  restrains 
a  would-be  murderer  or  thief,  force,  being  employed  imperson- 
ally or  disinterestedly  in  the  service  of  weakness  and  through 
the  arm  of  the  state,  is  wholly  legitimate.  In  the  same  manner, 
group  force  is  illegitimately  employed  when  a  nation,  for  its  own 
interests  of  conquest  or  glory,  etc.,  makes  war  upon  another 
nation.  On  the  other  hand,  when  a  group  of  nations,  pledged 
to  support  an  international  agreement  made  for  the  welfare  of 
all,  restrains  or  chastises  a  rebellious  nation,  force  is  legitimate 
because  impersonally  or  disinterestedly  employed. 

There  should  be  no  confusion  of  ideas  here.  It  is  not  force 
that  is  immoral.  It  is  the  immoral  use  of  force.  A  League  of 
Nations  with  no  instrument  of  force  to  back  its  decisions  will, 
apparently,  be  little  more  than  the  rope  of  sand  which  the 
Hague  Tribunal  at  the  moment  of  crisis  proved  to  be. 

So  much  for  the  structure  of  the  international  state.  But  a 
structure  without  foundations  is  a  shaky  affair.  What  of  the 
underlying  principles? 

One  of  the  striking  and  hopeful  aspects  of  all  this  thought 
of  world  rebuilding  which  we  have  outlined  is  that  it  focuses 
with  entire  clearness  upon  a  few  essential  principles  which  are 
to  serve  as  the  foundation  principles  of  the  new  world  charter. 
There  is  no  scattering  in  one  doctrinaire  direction  and  another. 
The  thought  of  men  to-day  is  terribly  serious  and  terribly 
united. 

In  the  first  place  there  is  overwhelming  agreement  as  to  the 
necessity  for  Open  Diplomacy.  "Parliamentary  control  of  for- 
eign policy  ...  so  that  secret  treaties  and  secret  diplomacy 
may  no  longer  endanger  the  most  vital  interests  of  the  na- 


i32  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

tion."1  "Secret  treaties  shall  be  void."2  "Diplomacy  in  all  nations 
must  be  put  under  the  control  of  parliaments  and  public  opinion."8 
"Foreign  politics  shall  be  subject  to  democratic  control."4 
"Abolition  of  secret  diplomacy."6  and  so  on.  Such  are  the 
phrases  used  to  express  the  one  overwhelming  conviction  that 
the  old  diplomacy  of  hidden  bargains,  of  suspicions  and  dreads 
and  surprises,  of  lyings  and  cheatings  must  be  completely  elim- 
inated from  a  decently  organized  world  society  of  nations. 

In  the  second  place  there  is  practically  equal  agreement  upon 
the  principle  that  no  transfer  of  territory  shall  take  place  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  population  involved  and  that  nations 
shall  have  the  right  to  decide  their  own  fate. 8  The  German  and 
Austro-Hungarian  Socialists  (Vienna,  April,  1915)  expressed 
this  by  the  phrase:  "Recognition  of  the  right  of  every  people 
to  determine  its  own  destiny."  The  German  Socialists,  as  re- 
ported in  the  New  York  Times  of  August  26,  1915,  expressed  it 
as  follows :  "Annexations  of  foreign  territories  violate  the 
rights  of  peoples  to  self-rule.  .  .  .  Therefore,  all  plans  of  short- 
sighted politicians  favoring  conquest  are  opposed."  The  Aus- 
tralian Peace  Alliance  expresses  it  in  the  words :  "No  province 
or  territory  in  any  part  of  the  world  shall  be  transferred  from 
one  government  to  another  without  the  consent  by  plebiscite  of 
the  population  of  such  province."  The  Federation  of  British 
Peace  Societies:  "No  territorial  change  without  consent  of 
the  population  involved."  So  the  Women's  Movement  for  Con- 
structive Peace  (English),  the  British  Independent  Labor  Party, 
the  Fabian  Society,  the  Union  of  Democratic  Control,  the  So- 
cialist Party  of  America,  The  World  Peace  Foundation,  The 
American  School  Peace  League,  the  Women's  International 
Peace  Congress,  Brailsford,  La  Fontaine,  Hobson,  Dickinson, 
Bryce  and  a  host  of  others.  The  principle  of  No  Conquest  is 
therefore  the  second  principles  which  has  emerged  out  of  the 
uncertainties  and  confusions  of  earlier  thought  into  the  clarity 
of  a  world  conviction. 

1  Neutral  Conference  for  Continuous  Mediation.    Stockholm. 

2  Central  Organization  for  a  Durable  Peace. 
8  International  Bureau  of  Peace. 

4  International  Congress  of  Women. 

6  Conference  of  Socialists  from  Sweden,  Norway,  Denmark,  and  Hol- 
land; 1915. 

a  Neutral  Conference  for  Continuous  Mediation.     Stockholm. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  133 

In  the  third  place,  as  might  be  expected,  there  is  a  concerted 
voice  calling  for  a  sincere  attempt  at  reduction  of  armaments. 
"Armaments  must  be  reduced  according  to  general  agreement 
and  placed  under  international  control"  (International  Bureau 
of  Peace)  ;  "Considerable  reduction  of  armies  and  application 
of  war  budgets  to  education,"  etc.  (Union  of  International  As- 
sociations, Brussels)  ;  "The  States  shall  agree  to  reduce  their 
armaments"  (Central  Organization  for  a  Durable  Peace)  ; 
"Disarmament  to  be  brought  about  by  international  agreement" 
(Neutral  Conference  for  Continuous  Mediation)  ;  and  so  on. 
With  this  goes,  in  some  of  the  plans,  the  demand  that  "as  a  step 
to  this  end  all  countries  should  .  .  .  take  over  the  manufacture 
of  arms  and  munitions  of  war  and  should  control  all  interna- 
tional traffic  in  the  same,  since  in  the  private  profits  accruing 
from  the  great  armament  factories"  there  is  "a  powerful  hin- 
drance to  the  abolition  of  war."  Whether  the  disarmament 
shall  be  gradual  or  immediate,  partial  or  complete,  the  agree- 
ment, again,  is  overwhelming  that  no  future  world  organization 
can  be  contemplated  that  does  not  take  effective  steps  to  root  out 
the  war  breeding  evil  of  competition  in  armaments. 

In  the  fourth  place  there  is  a  large  agreement,  an  agreement 
that  is  growing  into  a  more  emphatic  insistence  as  the  war 
progresses  and  the  underlying  issues  are  more  clearly  seen,  upon 
the  demand  for  Commercial  Freedom.  Whether  this  takes  the 
form  of  a  demand  for  a  removal  of  tariffs,  for  neutralization 
(freedom)  of  the  seas,  or  for  freedom  of  investment  oppor- 
tunities in  foreign  lands,  or  for  all  of  them,  it  is  an  indication 
that  the  world  has  become  instructed,  as  it  never  has  been  be- 
fore, upon  the  war-breeding  quality  of  all  hindrances  to  the  free 
movement  of  legitimate  economic  enterprise.  By  the  more  pen- 
etrating of  the  thinkers,  like  Brailsford  and  Hobson,  commercial 
freedom  is  taken  to  be  the  sine  qua  non  of  a  world  organized 
for  secure  peace.  Brailsford  indeed  calls,  in  his  plan  of  inter- 
national organization,  for  an  international  commission  to  guar- 
antee freedom  of  investment  opportunity  and  freedom  of  access 
to  raw  materials. 

Open  Diplomacy,  No  Conquest,  Reduction  of  Armaments, 
Commercial  Freedom — these  apparently  are  to  be  the  four  bed- 
rock principles  upon  which  the  new  international  order  is  to  be 


134  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

built,  the  forsquare  foundation,  as  it  were,  upon  which  the  in- 
ternational structure  of  the  future  is  to  rest. 

Foundation  and  superstructure!  The  twentieth  century  has 
its  clear  4ask  before  it,  its  contribution  to  make  to  the  centuries. 
May  there  be  no  cooling  of  the  heart,  no  slackening  of  its  great 
intention ! 

A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  * 

What  are  the  minimum  obligations  which  the  nations 
entering  into  a  free  league  will  be  willing  to  accept,  but 
which  will  be  sufficient  to  make  the  league  effective  for  the 
purpose  for  which  it  is  primarily  created — the  prevention  of 
war? 

All  the  proposals  that  I  have  seen  concerning  a  League  of 
Nations  provide  for  a  separation  of  cases  arising  between  the 
members  of  the  League  into  two  classes — justiciable  and  non- 
justiciable.  All  agree  that  justiciable  cases  should  go  to  a 
regularly  constituted  court,  either  the  existing  Hague  Court 
or  a  new  court  formed  directly  under  the  League. 

For  the  non-justiciable  cases  it  is  agreed  that  in  the  case 
of  a  difference  between  two  nations  which  they  themselves 
are  unable  to  settle,  they  shall  not  go  to  war  with  each  other 
until  the  members  of  the  League,  not  parties  to  the  contro- 
versy, have  had  the  grounds  of  difference  investigated  and 
have  made  recommendations  for  settlement. 

The  method  of  reaching  the  recommendations  raises  the 
question  of  the  nature  of  the  organization  of  the  League.  It 
is  suggested  that  it  will  be  advisable  for  the  body  created  by 
the  direct  representatives  of  the  nations  in  the  League  to 
confine  itself  to  essentially  legislative  functions.  This  body 
should  control  policies;  it  should  create  instruments  and 
agents  to  carry  out  these  policies.  The  actual  work  should 
be  done  by  these  instruments  and  agents.  A  League  of  Na- 
tions composed  of  a  considerable  number  of  members  could 
well  consider  and  control  policies.  It  could  not  wisely 
undertake  the  investigation  of  a  difference  between  two  na- 

1  From  an  address  by  Charles  *R.  Van  Hise,  late  President  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Wisconsin,  before  the  Wisconsin  State  Convention  of  the  League 
to  Enforce  Peace,  at  Madison,  November  8,  1918. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  135 

tions  and  make  recommendations  concerning  the  same. 
These  duties  should  be  performed  by  a  quasijudicial  body 
analogous  to  a  commission. 

Presuming,  therefore,  that  the  investigation  in  any  case 
will  be  made  by  a  commission  or  council  appointed  by  the 
members  of  the  League  not  parties  to  the  controversy,  its 
recommendations,  whether  unanimous  or  by  majority,  must 
be  final,  precisely  as  the  determination  of  a  court,  whether 
unanimous  -or  by  majority,  is  final.  To  require  that  the 
recommendations  of  a  tribunal  shall  be  unanimous,  or  after 
their  consideration  by  the  members  of  the  League  itself  shall 
be  unanimous,  as  has  been  seriously  proposed,  would  be  a 
decision  at  the  outset  to  make  the  League  of  Nations  futile. 

The  case  of  the  nobles  of  Poland,  who  acted  under  the 
principle  of  unanimity  with  calamitous  consequences  to  that 
country  for  more  than  a  century,  is  a  conclusive  illustration. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  acceptance  by  the  American  people 
of  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
often  with  a  bare  majority,  upon  most  momentous  questions, 
some  of  these  between  the  several  States  during  the  early 
years  of  the  Union,  when  the  States  were  being  cemented 
into  a  nation,  is  conclusive  evidence  of  the  soundness  of  the 
principle  advocated. 

The  next  question  that  arises  is  what  is  to  happen  if  a 
nation  of  the  League  goes  to  war  contrary  to  the  recommen- 
dations made.  It  has  been  proposed,  indeed  strongly  urged, 
by  many  who  are  advocating  a  League  of  Nations  that  all 
members  of  the  League  shall  bind  themselves  in  such  a  case 
to  support  the  attacked  state  with  their  armies  and  navies, 
and  also  economically. 

It  does  not  seem  to  me  that  it  will  be  practicable  to  secure 
the  agreement  of  the  nations  to  such  a  condition,  and  I, 
therefore,  propose  as  a  substitute  that  they  agree  that  any 
nation  in  the  League  shall  be  free,  if  it  so  desires,  to  support 
the  attacked  state  with  its  army  and  its  navy;  and  that  all  the 
members  of  the  League  agree  absolutely  to  boycott  the 
offending  nation,  to  have  no  trade  or  communication  with  it 
in  any  way  whatever,  to  treat  it  as  an  outlaw  among  the  free 
peoples  of  the  world. 

So  dependent  are  nations  upon  one  another  in  these  days 


136  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

of  instantaneous  communication,  rapid  transportation,  and 
international  commerce,  that  it  seems  to  me  any  nation  would 
be  very  slow  to  go  to  war  contrary  to  recommendations 
which  had  been  made  upon  its  case,  with  the  certainty  that 
the  war  would  have  to  be  prosecuted  entirely  upon  its  own 
resources,  that  no  help  could  be  in  any  way  derived  from 
any  other  nation;  not  only  so,  but  that  in  relations  other  than 
war  it  will  be  treated  as  a  leper. 

In  regard  to  differences  between  states  members  of  the 
League,  and  states  not  members  of  the  League,  the  League 
of  Nations  should  be  free  to  follow  precisely  the  same  pro- 
cedure as  if  both  nations  were  members  of  the  League,  and 
whether  or  not  the  nation  outside  the  League  requested  it, 
should  take  steps  for  the  investigation  of  differences  and  the 
making  of  recommendations.  If  the  nation  outside  the 
League  attacked  a  nation  within  the  League  before  the  case 
was  investigated  and  recommendations  made  or  contrary  to 
the  recommendations,  then,  again,  the  nations  of  the  League 
should  be  free  to  support  their  ally  with  their  armies  and 
navies  and  should  be  bound  to  support  it  by  complete  boycott 
of  the  offending  state. 

In  case  of  a  controversy  between  two  nations  alto- 
gether outside  the  League,  probably  it  is  not  wise  to  pro- 
pose that  the  League  should  do  more  than  tender  its  good 
offices  to  settle  the  difference  which  threatens  war,  precisely 
as  if  the  two  states  were  members  of  the  League.  This  offer 
might  not  always  be  accepted,  but  if  it  were  accepted  by  one 
state  and  not  accepted  by  the  other,  it  is  inevitable  that  the 
state  that  was  attacked  contrary  to  the  recommendation 
would  have  at  least  the  moral  support  and  influence  of  the 
nations  of  the  League,  and  no  war  has  ever  illustrated  the 
mighty  power  of  moral  support  as  has  this  war  which  is 
just  being  finished. 

A  question  which  immediately  arises  is,  Shall  Germany, 
which  country  is  already  committed  to  the  principle  of  a 
League,  be  admitted  under  the  terms  of  its  constitution? 

My  answer  is  that  as  soon  as  the  German  people  have 
shown  that  they  are  a  free  people,  wholly  independent  of 
autocracy,  have  completely  abandoned  the  evil  doctrine  of 
Might  and  are  ready  to  support  the  existence  of  a  moral 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  137 

order  in  the  world,  that  nation  should  become  a  member  of 
the  League  of  Free  Nations.  This  would  mean  that  Ger- 
many, once  admitted  to  the  League  in  the  matter  of  arma- 
ments as  well  as  others,  should  be  treated  upon  the  same 
basis  as  the  other  five  Powers.  But  there  should  be  the 
strictest  guarantees  that  the  agreements  should  not  be  sur- 
reptitiously disregarded.  If  Germany  is  allowed  to  unduly 
expand  her  armies,  this  will  start  again  in  the  world  the 
race  for  enormous  armaments. 

Another  question  that  arises  in  connection  with  the  ad- 
mission of  Germany  to  the  League  is  the  economic  treatment 
of  the  Central  Powers  after  the  war.  In  this  matter,  to  my 
mind,  there  are  two  phases,  that  of  reconstruction  and  that 
of  a  permanent  policy  following  reconstruction.  It  is  pos- 
sible, indeed  probable,  that  during  the  period  of  reconstruc- 
tion, there  will  be  a  shortage  of  essential  materials.  I  hold 
that  during  this  period  the  needs  of  the  Allies  must  have 
preference,  since  the  restoration  of  Belgium,  France,  and 
Serbia  has  been  made  necessary  in  large  measure  because 
of  the  ruthless  and  unlawful  acts  of  the  Central  Powers. 

Following  the  reconstruction  period,  when  the  world  has 
assumed  its  normal  condition,  the  Central  Powers  should  be 
placed  upon  precisely  the  same  economic  basis  as  are  other 
nations.  Each  nation,  with  regard  to  tariff  and  similar 
policies,  will  retain  its  own  autonomy;  but  the  League  of 
Nations  must  see  that  no  nation  within  the  League  which  has 
equal  treatment  with  regard  to  raw  materials  shall  pursue 
unfair  practices  in  international  trade.  In  short,  unfair  prac- 
tices in  international  trade,  illustrated  by  dumping,  must  be 
outlawed  precisely  as  are  unfair  practices  in  national  trade. 
In  this  respect  Germany  has  been  an  offender  in  the  past; 
and  only  when  she  reforms  completely  shall  she  have  the 
same  treatment  as  other  nations  with  regard  to  raw  materials. 

In  order  that  the  League  of  Free  Nations  shall  have  per- 
manence  and  its  influence  grow,  it  is  necessary  that  it  shall 
have  something  to  do.  In  the  matter  of  justiciable  cases  this 
is  provided  for.  The  non-justiciable  cases  would  be  sporadic. 
They  would  doubtless  be  handled  as  they  arose  by  appro- 
priate agents,  appointed  for  the  purpose.  However,  the  terms 
of  peace  are  likely  to  require  a  number  of  international 


138  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

obligations.  It  is  clear  that  the  Dardanelles  must  be  made 
open  to  the  peoples  of  the  world;  they  must  be  internation- 
alized. It  is  generally  believed  that  the  German  African 
colonies -should  not  be  returned  to  that  country.  With  the 
exception  of  Southwestern  Africa,  the  administration  of  these 
colonies  in  the  interest  of  their  peoples  might  well  become 
an  international  obligation.  New  states  have  been  created 
through  the  disintegration  of  Russia  and  will  be  created  by 
the  disintegration  of  Austria.  It  will  be  necessary  that  these 
states  have  a  big  brother  to  assist  them  when  necessary 
until  they  get  on  their  feet,  precisely  as  the  United  States 
served  as  a  big  brother  for  Cuba  and  she  was  able  to  act  in- 
dependently. This  is  international  work.  It  seems  to  me 
that  this  function  should  be  exercised  directly  through  the 
League  of  Free  Nations.  An  organization  shall  be  created 
by  it  to  handle  international  responsibility  in  the  interests 
of  the  world.  This  will  involve  the  setting  up  of  an  appro- 
priate government  in  each  case,  the  apportioning  of  the 
necessary  protection  and  the  allocation  of  the  required  funds 
among  the  members  of  the  League.  From  time  to  time,  as 
need  arises,  a  helping  hand  should  be  given,  but  always  with 
the  purpose  of  developing  a  province  exclusively  in  the  in- 
terests of  its  inhabitants,  and  finally  when  the  time  comes,  of 
establishing  self-government.  This  passage  from  government 
by  an  instrument  of  the  League  of  Nations  to  self-govern- 
ment in  each  case  should  be  the  ultimate  goal. 

The  foregoing  discussion  assumes  that  the  United  States 
will  become  one  of  the  great  nations  of  the  Free  League. 
This  is  a  complete  abandonment  of  the  traditional  policy  of 
isolation. 

Already  in  this  war  the  United  States  has  abandoned 
the  policy  of  isolation  and  has  acted  in  practical  alliance 
with  the  great  Powers  fighting  Germany.  It  is  true  that  the 
President  has  always  alluded  to  the  other  Powers  as  our  asso- 
ciates  in  war  rather  than  as  our  allies;  but  in  every  respect 
in  the  conduct  of  the  war  the  United  States  has  acted  pre- 
cisely as  have  the  other  members  of  the  alliance.  Indeed, 
the  United  States  has  taken  leadership  in  making  the  alliance 
stronger  and  firmer  through  a  common  command  of  the  fighting 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  139 

forces,  through  cooperation  in  the  feeding  of  the  Allies,  and 
through  the  apportionment  of  the  materials  of  war. 

In  the  second  place,  even  if  we  had  not  already  abandoned 
the  policy  of  isolation,  sooner  or  later  it  would  have  been 
necessary  to  do  so  under  the  conditions  of  the  modern  world. 
The  policy  may  have  been  wise  when  the  Atlantic  Ocean 
was  a  great  gulf  between  America  and  Europe.  Transporta- 
tion and  communication  were  so  slow  that  the  United  States 
could  pursue  policies  independent  of  those  followed  in 
Europe.  However,  now  that  communication  is  instantaneous 
and  transportation  so  rapid  that  goods  cross  the  Atlantic  in 
less  than  a  week,  and  the  trade  of  each  nation  depends  upon 
materials  derived  from  other  nations,  isolation  is  no  longer 
possible.  The  world  has  become  one  body,  and  no  great 
member  of  it  can  proceed  independently  of  the  other  members. 
They  must  act  together;  and  this  is  only  possible  through 
formal  treaty  covenants. 

It  seems  clear  that  if  the  United  States  now  shirks  the 
responsibility  of  entering  the  League  of  Free  Nations,  it  is 
inevitable  that  some  time  in  the  future  she  will  again  be 
obliged  to  intervene  in  a  war  for  which  she  is  in  no  way 
responsible  and  the  initiation  of  which  she  had  no  means 
to  control.  Because  of  the  intimate  international  relations, 
if  a  world  conflagration  again  starts,  it  is  almost  in- 
evitable that  we  shall  be  drawn  into  it  precisely  as  we  were 
into  this. 

Finally,  it  should  be  pointed  out  that  the  proposal  to 
join  a  League  of  Free  Nations  is  fundamentally  different 
from  joining  an  alliance  of  the  kind  which  was  meant  when 
the  doctrine  of  avoiding  entangling  alliances  was  developed. 
The  danger  of  joining  an  alliance  is  that  this  alliance  will  get 
into  an  armed  conflict  with  another  alliance.  The  plan  of 
balance  of  powers  between  alliances  in  Europe,  we  know,  has 
led  to  disastrous  wars  from  time  to  time.  If  it  were  pro- 
posed that  the  United  States  should  enter  into  an  alliance 
with  one  or  two  Powers  of  Europe,  the  objection  would  hold 
that  it  would  be  entering  into  an  entangling  alliance;  but  the 
proposal  is  that  the  United  States  shall  enter  a  League  of 
Free  Nations,  which  shall  at  the  outset  include  the  great 
dominant  free  nations  and  which  shall  finally  include  prac- 


140  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

tically  all  nations.  This  is  not  an  alliance,  but  a  step  toward 
cooperative  world  organization,  and  therefore  World  Peace. 
Not  only  should  the  United  States  enter  the  League  of  Free 
Nations,^  but  she  should  take  the  position  of  leadership  in 
its  formation  to  which  she  is  entitled  from  the  commanding 
influence  which  she  is  exercising  at  the  present  time  in  the 
councils  of  the  world. 


MEMORANDUM  ON  WAR  AIMS  1 

THE  WAR 

I.  The  Inter-Allied  Conference  declares  that  whatever  may 
have  been  the  causes  of  the  outbreak  of  war  it  is  clear  that  the 
peoples  of  Europe,  who  are  necessarily  the  chief  sufferers  from 
its  horrors,  had  themselves  no  hand  in  it.  Their  common  inter- 
est is  now  so  to  conduct  the  terrible  struggle  in  which  they  find 
themselves  engaged  as  to  bring  it,  as  soon  as  may  be  possible, 
to  an  issue  in  a  secure  and  lasting  peace  for  the  world. 

The  Conference  sees  no  reason  to  depart  from  the  following 
declaration  unanimously  agreed  to  at  the  Conference  of  the 
Socialist  and  Labour  Parties  of  the  Allied  Nations  on  February 
14,  1915: 

"This  Conference  cannot  ignore  the  profound  general  causes 
of  the  European  conflict,  itself  a  monstrous  product  of  the  an- 
tagonisms which  tear  asunder  capitalist  society  and  of  the  policy 
of  Colonial  dependencies  and  aggressive  Imperialism,  against 
which  International  Socialism  has  never  ceased  to  fight,  and  in 
which  every  government  has  its  share  of  responsibility. 

"The  invasion  of  Belgium  and  France  by  the  German  armies 
threatens  the  very  existence  of  independent  nationalities  and 
strikes  a  blow  at  all  faith  in  treaties.  In  these  circumstances  a 
victory  for  German  Imperialism  would  be  the  defeat  and  the 
destruction  of  democracy  and  liberty  in  Europe.  The  Socialists 
of  Great  Britain,  Belgium,  France,  and  Russia  do  not  pursue 
the  political  and  economic  crushing  of  Germany ;  they  are  not  at 

1  Adopted  by  the  Inter- Allied  Labour  and  Socialist  Conference  in  Lon- 
don, February  22,  1918.  Reprinted  from  the  London  Times,  February 
25,  1918. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  141 

war  with  the  peoples  of  Germany  and  Austria,  but  only  with 
the  governments  of  those  countries  by  which  they  are  oppressed. 
They  demand  that  Belgium  shall  be  liberated  and  compensated. 
They  desire  that  the  question  of  Poland  shall  be  settled  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  wishes  of  the  Polish  people,  either  in  the 
sense  of  autonomy  in  the  midst  of  another  state,  or  in  that  of 
complete  independence,  They  wish  that  throughout  all  Europe, 
from  Alsace-Lorraine  to  the  Balkans,  those  populations  that 
have  been  annexed  by  force  shall  receive  the  right  freely  to  dis- 
pose of  themselves. 

"While  inflexibly  resolved  to  fight  until  victory  is  achieved  to 
accomplish  this  task  of  liberation,  the  Socialists  are  none  the 
less  resolved  to  resist  any  attempt  to  transform  this  defensive 
war  into  a  war  of  conquest,  which  would  only  prepare  fresh 
conflicts,  create  new  grievances  and  subject  various  peoples 
more  than  ever  to  the  double  plague  of  armaments  and  war. 

"Satisfied  that  they  are  remaining  true  to  the  principles  of 
the  International,  the  members  of  the  Conference  express  the 
hope  that  the  working  classes  of  all  the  different  countries  will 
before  long  find  themselves  united  again  in  their  struggle 
against  militarism  and  capitalist  Imperialism.  The  victory  of 
the  Allied  Powers  must  be  a  victory  for  popular  liberty,  for 
unity,  independence,  and  autonomy  of  the  nations  in  the  peaceful 
federation  of  the  United  States  of  Europe  and  the  world." 

MAKING  THE  WORLD   SAFE  FOR  DEMOCRACY 

II.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  objects  for  which  the  war 
was  begun,  the  fundamental  purpose  of  the  Inter-Allied  Con- 
ference in  supporting  the  continuance  of  the  struggle  is  that  the 
world  may  henceforth  be  made  safe  for  democracy. 

Of  all  the  conditions  of  peace  none  is  so  important  to  the 
peoples  of  the  world  as  that  there  should  be  henceforth  on  earth 
no  more  war. 

Whoever  triumphs,  the  peoples  will  have  lost  unless  an  in- 
ternational system  is  established  which  will  prevent  war.  What 
would  it  mean  to  declare  the  right  of  peoples  to  self-determina- 
tion if  this  right  were  left  at  the  mercy  of  new  violations,  and 
was  not  protected  by  a  super-national  authority?  That  author- 
ity can  be  no  other  than  the  League  of  Nations,  in  which  not 


142  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

only  all  the  present  belligerents,   but  every  other  independent 
state,  should  be  pressed  to  join. 

The  constitution  of  such  a  League  of  Nations  implies  the 
immediate-  establishment  of  an  International  High  Court,  not 
only  for  the  settlement  of  all  disputes  between  states  that  are  of 
justiciable  nature,  but  also  for  prompt  and  effective  mediation 
between  states  in  other  issues  that  vitally  interest  the  power  or 
honour  of  such  states.  It  is  also  under  the  control  of  the  League 
of  Nations  that  the  consultation  of  peoples  for  purposes  of  self- 
determination  must  be  organized.  This  popular  right  can  be 
vindicated  only  by  popular  vote.  The  League  of  Nations  shall 
establish  the  procedure  of  international  jurisdiction,  fix  the 
methods  which  will  maintain  the  freedom  and  security  of  the 
election,  restore  the  political  rights  of  individuals  which  violence 
and  conquest  may  have  injured,  repress  any  attempt  to  use  pres- 
sure or  corruption,  and  prevent  any  subsequent  reprisals.  It  will 
be  also  necessary  to  form  an  International  Legislature,  in  which 
the  representatives  of  every  civilized  state  would  have  their 
allotted  share  and  energetically  to  push  forward,  step  by  step, 
the  development  of  international  legislation  agreed  to  by,  and 
definitely  binding  upon,  the  several  states. 

By  a  solemn  agreement  all  the  states  and  peoples  consulted 
shall  pledge  themselves  to  submit  every  issue  between  two  or 
more  of  them  for  settlement  as  aforesaid.  Refusal  to  accept 
arbitration  or  to  submit  to  the  settlement  will  imply  deliberate 
aggression,  and  all  the  nations  will  necessarily  have  to  make, 
common  cause,  by  using  any  and  every  means  at  their  disposal, 
either  economical  or  military,  against  any  state  or  states  refus- 
ing to  submit  to  the  arbitration  award,  or  attempting  to  break 
the  world's  covenant  of  peace. 

But  the  sincere  acceptance  of  the  rules  and  decisions  of  the 
super-national  authority  implies  complete  democratization  in  all 
countries;  the  removal  of  all  the  arbitrary  powers  who,  until 
now,  have  assumed  the  right  of  choosing  between  peace  and 
war;  the  maintenance  or  creation  of  legislatures  elected  by  and 
on  behalf  of  the  sovereign  right  of  the  people;  the  suppression 
of  secret  diplomacy,  to  be  replaced  by  the  conduct  of  foreign 
policy  under  the  control  of  popular  legislatures,  and  the  pub- 
lication of  all  treaties,  which  must  never  be  in  contravention  of 
the  stipulation  of  the  League  of  Nations,  with  the  absolute  re- 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  143 

sponsibility  of  the  Government,  and  more  particularly  of  the 
foreign  minister  of  each  country  to  its  Legislature. 

Only  such  a  policy  will  enforce  the  frank  abandonment  of 
every  form  of  Imperialism.  When  based  on  universal  democ- 
racy,' in  a  world  in  which  effective  international  guarantees 
against  aggression  have  been  secured,  the  League  of  Nations 
will  achieve  the  complete  suppression  of  force  as  the  means  of 
settling  international  differences. 

The  League  of  Nations  in  order  to  prepare  for  the  con- 
certed abolition  of  compulsory  military  service  in  all  countries, 
must  first  take  steps  for  the  prohibition  of  fresh  armaments  on 
land  and  sea  and  for  the  common  limitation  of  the  existing 
armaments  by  which  all  the  peoples  are  burdened;  as  well  as 
the  control  of  war  manufactures  and  the  enforcement  of  such 
agreements  as  may  be  agreed  to  thereupon.  The  states  must 
undertake  such  manufactures  themselves,  so  as  entirely  to  abol- 
ish profit-making  armament  firms,  whose  pecuniary  interest  lies 
always  in  the  war  scares  and  progressive  competition  in  the 
preparation  for  war. 

The  nations,  being  armed  solely  for  self-defence  and  for 
such  action  as  the  League  of  Nations  may  ask  them  to  take  in 
defence  of  international  right,  will  be  left  free,  under  interna- 
tional control  either  to  create  a  voluntarily  recruited  force  or  to 
organize  the  nation  for  defence  without  professional  armies  for 
long  terms  of  military  service. 

To  give  effect  to  the  above  principles,  the  Inter-Allied  Con- 
ference declares  that  the  rules  upon  which  the  League  of  Nations 
will  be  founded  must  be  included  in  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  and 
will  henceforward  become  the  basis  of  the  settlement  of  differ- 
ences. In  that  spirit  the  Conference  expresses  its  agreement 
with  the  propositions  put  forward  by  President  Wilson  in  his 
last  message: 

1.  That  each  part  of  the  final  settlement  must  be  based  upon 
the  essential  justice  of  that  particular  case,  and  upon  such  ad- 
justments as  are  most  likely  to  bring  a  peace  that  will  be  per- 
manent. 

2.  That  peoples  and  provinces  are  not  to  be  bartered  about 
from  sovereignty  to  sovereignty  as  if  they  were  mere  chattels 
and  pawns  in  a  game,  even  the  great  game  now  forever  dis- 
credited of  the  balance  of  power  •  but  that 


144  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

3.  Every  territorial  settlement  involved  in  this  war  must  be 
made  in  the  interest  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  populations  con- 
cerned,  and  not  as   a  part   of   any  mere   adjustment  or   com- 
promise of  claims  amongst  rival  states. 

4.  That   all   well-defined   national    aspirations    shall    be    ac- 
corded the  utmost  satisfaction  that  can  be  accorded  them  with- 
out introducing  new  or  perpetuating  old  elements   of   discord 
and  antagonism  that  would  be  likely  in  time  to  break  the  peace 
of  Europe  and,  consequently,  of  the  world. 

TERRITORIAL    QUESTIONS 

III.  The  Inter-Allied  Conference  considers  that  the  procla- 
mation of  principles  of  international  law  accepted  by  all  nations, 
and  the  substitution  of  a  regular  procedure  for  the  forceful  acts 
by  which  states  calling  themselves  sovereign  have  hitherto  ad- 
justed their  differences — in  short,  the  establishment  of  a  League 
of  Nations — gives  an  entirely  new  aspect  to  territorial  problems. 

The  old  diplomacy  and  the  yearnings  after  domination  by 
states,  or  even  by  peoples,  which  during  the  whole  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  have  taken  advantage  of  and  corrupted  the  as- 
pirations of  nationalities,  have  brought  Europe  to  a  condition 
of  anarchy  and  disorder  which  have  led  inevitably  to  the  present 
catastrophe. 

The  Conference  declares  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  Labour  and 
Socialist  Movement  to  suppress  without  hesitation  the  Imperial- 
ist designs  in  the  various  states  which  have  led  one  Government 
after  another  to  seek,  by  the  triumph  of  military  force,  to  ac- 
quire either  new  territories  or  economic  advantage. 

The  establishment  of  a  system  of  international  law  and  the 
guarantees  afforded  by  a  League  of  Nations,  ought  to  remove 
the  last  excuse  for  those  strategic  protections  which  nations 
have  hitherto  felt  bound  to  require. 

It  is  the  supreme  principle  of  the  right  of  each  people  to  de- 
termine its  own  destiny  that  must  now  decide  what  steps  should 
be  taken  by  way  of  restitution  or  reparation,  and  whatever  ter- 
ritorial readjustments  may  be  found  to  be  necessary  at  the  close 
of  the  present  war. 

The  Conference  accordingly  emphasizes  the  importance  to 
the  Labour  and  Socialist  Movement  of  a  clear  and  exact  defini- 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  145 

tion  of  what  is  meant  by  the  right  of  each  people  to  determine 
its  own  destiny.  Neither  destiny  of  race  nor  identity  of  lan- 
guage can  be  regarded  as  affording  more  than  a  presumption  in 
favor  of  federation  or  unification.  During  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, theories  of  this  kind  have  so  often  served  as  a  cloak  for 
aggression  that  the  International  cannot  but  seek  to  prevent  any 
recurrence  of  such  an  evil.  Any  adjustments  of  boundaries  that 
become  necessary  must  be  based  exclusively  upon  the  desire  of 
the  people  concerned. 

It  is  true  that  it  is  impossible  for  the  necessary  consultation 
of  the  desires  of  the  people  concerned  to  be  made  in  any  fixed 
and  invariable  way  for  all  the  cases  in  which  it  is  required,  and 
that  the  problems  of  nationality  and  territory  are  not  the  same 
for  the  inhabitants  of  all  countries.  Nevertheless,  what  is  neces- 
sary in  all  cases  is  that  the  procedure  to  be  adopted  should  be 
decided,  not  by  one  of  the  parties  to  the  dispute,  but  by  the 
super-national  authority. 


ECONOMIC  RELATIONS 

IV.  The  Inter-Allied  Conference  declares  against  all  the 
projects  now  being  prepared  by  Imperialists  and  capitalists,  not 
in  any  one  country  only,  but  in  most  countries,  for  an  economic 
war,  after  peace  has  been  secured,  either  against  one  or  other 
foreign  nation  or  against  all  foreign  nations,  as  such  an  eco- 
nomic war,  if  begun  by  any  country,  would  inevitably  lead  to 
reprisals,  to  which  each  nation  in  turn  might  in  self-defence  be 
driven.  The  main  lines  of  marine  communication  should  be 
open  without  hindrance  to  vessels  of  all  nations  under  the  pro- 
tection of  the  League  of  Nations.  The  Conference  realizes  that 
all  attempts  at  economic  aggression,  whether  by  protective  tariffs 
or  capitalist  trusts  or  monopolies,  inevitably  result  in  the  spolia- 
tion of  the  working  classes  of  the  several  countries  for  the  profit 
of  the  capitalists;  and  the  working  class  see  in  the  alliance  be- 
tween the  Military  Imperialists  and  the  Fiscal  Protectionists  in 
any  country  whatsoever  not  only  a  serious  danger  to  the  pros- 
perity of  the  masses  of  the  people,  but  also  a  grave  menace  to 
peace.  On  the  other  hand,  the  right  of  each  nation  to  the  de- 
fence of  its  own  economic  interests,  and  in  face  of  the  world- 


146  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

shortage  hereinafter  mentioned,  to  the  conservation  for  its  own 
people  of  a  sufficiency  of  its  own  supplies  of  foodstuffs  and  raw 
materials,  cannot  be  denied.  The  Conference  accordingly  urges 
upon  the  Labour  and  Socialist  Parties  of  all  countries,  the  im- 
portance of  insisting,  in  the  attitude  of  the  Government  toward 
commercial  enterprise,  along  with  the  necessary  control  of  sup- 
plies for  its  own  people,  on  the  principle  of  the  open  door,  and 
without  hostile  discrimination  against  foreign  countries.  But  it 
urges  equally  the  importance,  not  merely  of  conservation,  but 
also  of  the  utmost  possible  development,  by  appropriate  Govern- 
ment action,  of  the  resources  of  every  country  for  the  benefit 
not  only  of  its  own  people  but  also  of  the  world,  and  the  need 
for  an  international  agreement  for  the  enforcement  in  all  coun- 
tries of  the  legislation  on  factory  conditions,  a  maximum  eight- 
hour  day,  the  prevention  of  "sweating"  and  unhealthy  trades 
necessary  to  protect  the  workers  against  exploitation  and  op- 
pression, and  the  prohibition  of  night  work  by  women  and  chil- 
dren. 

THE    PROBLEMS    OF    PEACE 

V.  To  make  the  world  safe  for  democracy  involves  much 
more  than  the  prevention  of  war,  either  military  or  economic. 
It  will  be  a  device  of  the  capitalist  interests  to  pretend  that  the 
Treaty  of  Peace  need  concern  itself  only  with  the  cessation  of 
the  struggles  of  the  armed  forces  and  with  any  necessary  terri- 
torial readjustments.  The  Inter-Allied  Conference  insists  that 
in  view  of  the  probable  world-wide  shortage,  after  the  war,  of 
exportable  foodstuffs  and  raw  materials,  and  of  merchant  ship- 
ping, it  is  imperative,  in  order  to  prevent  the  most  serious  hard- 
ships, and  even  possible  famine,  in  one  country  or  another,  that 
systematic  arrangements  should  be  made  on  an  international 
basis  for  the  allocation  and  conveyance  of  the  available  ex- 
portable surpluses  of  these  commodities  to  the  different  coun- 
tries, in  proportion,  not  to  their  purchasing  powers,  but  to  their 
several  pressing  needs ;  and  that,  within  each  country,  the 
Government  must  for  some  time  maintain  its  control  of  the 
most  indispensable  commodities,  in  order  to  secure  their  appro- 
priation, not  in  a  competitive  market  mainly  to  the  richer  classes 
in  proportion  to  their  means,  but,  systematically,  to  meet  the 
most  urgent  needs  of  the  whole  community  on  the  principle  of 
no  cake  for  anyone  until  all  have  bread." 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  147 

Moreover,  it  cannot  but  be  anticipated  that,  in  all  countries, 
the  dislocation  of  industry  attendant  on  peace,  the  instant  dis- 
charge of  millions  of  munition  makers  and  workers  in  war 
trades,  and  the  demobilization  of  millions  of  soldiers — in  the 
face  of  the  scarcity  of  industrial  capital,  the  shortage  of  raw 
materials,  and  the  insecurity  of  commercial  enterprise — will,  un- 
less prompt  and  energetic  action  be  taken  by  the  several  Govern- 
ments, plunge  a  large  part  of  the  wage-earning  population  into 
all  the  miseries  of  unemployment  more  or  less  prolonged.  In 
view  of  the  fact  that  widespread  unemployment  in  any  country, 
like  a  famine,  is  an  injury  not  to  that  country  alone,  but  im- 
poverishes also  the  rest  of  the  world,  the  Conference  holds  that 
it  is  the  duty  of  every  Government  to  take  immediate  action,  not 
merely  to  relieve  the  unemployed,  when  unemployment  has  set 
in,  but  actually,  so  far  as  may  be  practicable,  to  prevent  the  oc- 
currence of  unemployment.  It  therefore  urges  upon  the  Labour 
Parties  of  every  country  the  necessity  of  their  pressing  upon 
their  Governments  the  preparation  of  plans  for  the  execution  of 
all  the  innumerable  public  works  (such  as  the  making  and  re- 
pairing of  roads,  railways  and  waterways,  the  erection  of 
schools,  and  public  buildings,  the  provision  of  working-class 
dwellings  and  the  reclamation  and  afforestation  of  land)  that 
will  be  required  in  the  near  future,  not  for  the  sake  of  finding 
measures  of  relief  for  the  unemployed,  but  with  a  view  to  these 
works  being  undertaken  at  such  a  rate  in  each  locality  as  will 
suffice,  together  with  the  various  capitalist  enterprises  that  may 
be  in  progress,  to  maintain  at  a  fairly  uniform  level  year  by 
year,  and  throughout  each  year,  the  aggregate  demand  for  la- 
bour; and  thus  prevent  there  being  any  unemployed.  It  is  now 
known  that  in  this  way  it  is  quite  possible  for  any  Government 
to  prevent,  if  it  chooses,  the  occurrence  of  any  widespread  or 
prolonged  involuntary  unemployment;  which  if  it  is  now  in  any 
country  allowed  to  occur,  is  as  much  the  result  of  Government 
neglect  as  is  any  epidemic  disease. 

RESTORATION    OF   THE   DEVASTATED    AREAS 
AND  REPARATION  OF  WRONGDOING 

VI.  The  Inter-Allied  Conference  holds  that  one  of  the  most 
imperative  duties  of  all  countries  immediately  peace  is  declared 


I48  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

will  be  the  restoration,  so  far  as  may  be  possible,  of  the  homes, 
farms,  factories,  public  buildings,  and  means  of  communication 
whatever  destroyed  by  war  operations;  that  the  restoration 
should  not  be  limited  to  compensation  for  public  buildings,  cap- 
italist undertakings  and  material  property  proved  to  be  destroyed 
or  damaged,  but  should  be  extended  to  setting  up  the  wage 
earners  and  peasants  themselves  in  homes  and  employment;  and 
that  to  ensure  the  full  and  impartial  application  of  these  princi- 
ples the  assessment  and  distribution  of  the  compensation,  so  far 
as  the  cost  is  contributed  by  any  international  fund,  should  be 
made  under  the  direction  of  an  International  Commission. 

The  Conference  will  not  be  satisfied  unless  there  is  a  full  and 
free  judicial  investigation  into  the  accusations  made  on  all  sides 
that  particular  Governments  have  ordered,  and  particular  officers 
have  exercised,  acts  of  cruelty,  oppression,  violence  and  theft 
against  individual  victims,  for  which  no  justification  can  be 
found  in  the  ordinary  usages  of  war.  It  draws  attention  in 
particular  to  the  loss  of  life  and  property  of  merchant  seamen 
and  other  non-combatants  (including  women  and  children)  re- 
sulting from  this  inhuman  and  ruthless  conduct.  It  should  be 
part  of  the  conditions  of  peace  that  there  should  be  forthwith 
set  up  a  Court  of  Claims  and  Accusations,  which  should  inves- 
tigate all  such  allegations  as  may  be  brought  before  it,  summon 
the  accused  person  or  Government  to  answer  the  complaint,  pro- 
nounce judgement,  and  award  compensation  or  damages,  payable 
by  the  individual  or  Government  condemned,  to  the  persons  who 
had  suffered  wrong,  or  to  their  dependents.  The  several 
Governments  must  be  responsible,  financially  and  otherwise,  for 
the  presentation  of  the  cases  of  their  respective  nationals  to  such 
a  Court  of  Claims  and  Accusations,  and  for  the  payment  of  the 
compensation  awarded. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  149 


LABOR  AND  THE  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS1 

It  is  my  purpose  here  to  consider  in  the  light  of  labor's  de- 
mands and  of  existing  facts  in  the  world  of  international  events 
the  one  big  constructive  suggestion  which  the  world  has  now  to 
work  upon — the  idea  of  a  league  of  nations.  Labor  is  lending 
earnest  support  to  the  proposal  for  a  league.  Yet,  oddly  enough, 
despite  the  widespread  and  almost  sudden  popularity  which  this 
idea  has  attained,  it  is  still  a  somewhat  tentative  and  nebulous 
one.  It  still  suffers  from  too  great  a  generality  of  statement. 
Until  it  is  removed  from  the  realm  of  the  abstract,  until  the  con- 
ception of  the  society  of  nations  is  broadened  to  include  some- 
thing more  than  political  functions  and  interests,  there  is  grave 
danger  that  the  idea  may  prove  an  impractical  instrument  of 
genuine  democratic  internationalism,  in  exactly  the  same  way 
that  the  nineteenth  century  state  proved  ill-adapted  to  effective 
democratic  national  council. 

As  endorsed  by  the  inter-allied  workers  the  idea  contemplates 
the  immediate  establishment  "actually  as  a  part  of  the  treaty  of 
peace  with  which  the  present  war  will  end,  of  a  universal  league 
or  society  of  nations,  a  supernational  authority,  with  an  inter- 
national high  court  to  try  all  justiciable  issues  between  nations. 
.  .  ."  But  what  these  justiciable  issues  are,  upon  what  matters 
the  "international  legislature"  should  legislate — these  are  vital 
questions  for  which  no  answers  are  suggested.  Nor  has  there 
been  any  public  attempt  to  relate  these  plans  for  supernational 
political  machinery  to  labor's  industrial  program.  Indeed,  there 
has  been  an  almost  complete  hiatus  between  the  thinking  regard- 
ing the  political  structure  involved  in  a  league  of  nations  and 
the  economic  functions  which  it  is  becoming  increasingly  obvi- 
ous, the  league  must  assume.  Labor  has  urged  a  league  with  an 
organization  patterned  on  familiar  political  forms.  Yet  it  also 
demands  in  the  next  breath  an  international  control  over  com- 
modities and  materials  for  which  conventional  political  govern- 
ment offers  no  analogies  and  no  clues.  Can  the  democratically 
minded  workers  achieve  any  reconciliation  between  the  ideas  of 

1  By  Ordway  Tead,  member  of  the  firm  of  Valentine,  Tead  &  Gregg, 
Industrial  Counselors,  and  a  contributor  to  various  economic  journals.  In- 
ternational Conciliation.  No.  131:533-42.  October,  1918. 


i5o  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

a  political  and  economic  internationalism?  Does  the  league  of 
nations  offer  any  ground  for  such  a  reconciliation? 

It  is  largely  the  popular  over-emphasis  of  the  political  an- 
alogies which  gives  point  to  the  objection  that  the  projected 
world  society  appears  to  contemplate  no  definite  job.  Yet, 
clearly,  if  it  is  to  make  good,  the  league  requires  specific  func- 
tions. Any  organization  possessing  vitality  has  come  into  being 
only  in  response  to  a  need  recognized  and  pondered  until  some 
cooperative  way  of  meeting  it  is  seen.  Demand  for  the  per- 
formance of  a  function  is  the  only  valid  occasion  for  the  crea- 
tion of  a  body  to  perform  it.  Of  international  organizations 
this  is  especially  true.  To  be  successful  they  must  be  functional 
in  character — that  is,  they  must  exist  in  response  to  a  felt  need 
and  be  so  constituted  as  to  meet  that  need.  This  is  a  simple 
truth;  but  it  can  be  of  immense  value  in  helping  to  keep  our 
thinking  on  international  problems  clear.  If  we  hold  this  truth 
in  view,  we  can  get  the  right  perspective  on  organizations  and 
can  be  on  our  guard  against  those  with  resonant  names  but 
vague  duties. 

But  the  league  of  nations,  it  is  popularly  supposed,  will  be 
charged  with  the  duty  of  enforcing  peace.  As  Mr.  Wells  puts 
it,  there  is  a  "plain  necessity"  for  a  universal  society  as  a  con- 
dition of  organizing  the  world  for  peace.  Yet  whether  or  not 
"keeping  the  peace"  involves  a  concrete  program  and  definite 
activities  is  still  not  a  matter  of  wide  agreement.  Certainly,  as 
we  have  construed  it  in  political  and  diplomatic  affairs  down 
to  the  present  the  peace-keeping  job  is  very  much  in  the  air, 
related  to  a  thousand  projects  and  policies,  but  having  no  single 
and  genuine  rallying  point  of  its  own.  In  existing  institutions 
the  task  generally  characterized  as  "preserving  the  peace"  is 
largely  a  negative  one.  No  one  would  seriously  suggest,  for 
example,  that  the  municipal  court  by  virtue  of  its  function  of 
maintaining  order  provides  the  cohesive  force  which  holds  the 
local  community  together.  There  are  a  thousand  local  functions 
more  indispensable,  more  vitally  contributory  to  the  preserva- 
tion of  law  and  peace.  In  reality,  it  is  through  the  administra- 
tion of  health,  education,  municipal  training  and  the  various 
local  utilities  which  are  urgently  required  by  common  necessity 
that  the  local  community  is  unified  and  stabilized. 

Internationally,  it  is  equally  true  that  functions  upon  which 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  151 

common  necessity  dictates  cooperation  are  the  ones  for  which 
the  nations  should  provide  joint  organizations.  This  is  in  line 
with  the  war's  great  lesson :  that  peace  is  best  maintained  not  so 
much  by  efforts  to  keep  the  peace  as  by  common  efforts  to  solve 
the  problems  that  provoke  the  nations  to  war.  If,  as  a  recent 
writer  observes,  "all  nations  act  from  self  interest,"  it  is  only 
honest  moral  economy  to  entrust  to  supernational  bodies  definite 
tasks  in  the  performance  of  which  each  nation  is  undeniably 
and  permanently  interested.  Where  the  common  self-interest  of 
each  country  is  best  served  by  common  participation  in  the  solv- 
ing of  common  problems,  can  we  afford  not  to  act  together? 
Can  labor  after  the  sacrifices  of  the  war  stop  short  of  demanding 
bodies  on  a  world-wide  basis  to  which  some  more  positive  work 
than  the  maintenance  of  peace  is  assigned? 

If  there  is  doubt  concerning  the  reality  of  the  function  popu- 
larly attributed  to  a  league  of  nations,  it  can  be  removed  only 
by  clarifying  the  statement  of  the  function.  The  world's  prob- 
lem becomes  one  of  discovering  what  issues  require  international 
action  to  ensure  national  salvation.  Such  necessitous  problems 
are  obviously  to  a  large  extent  economic  in  character.  They 
relate  to  food  supply  and  sustenance.  Concerning  precisely  in  what 
difficulties  cooperative  action  is  imperative  and  isolation  equiv- 
alent to  starvation,  is  therefore  a  subject  for  close  analysis  by 
the  members  of  a  society  of  nations. 

In  line  with  this  conclusion  is  the  recent  statement  of  Pro- 
fessor Gilbert  Murray  concerning  after-war  problems.  "There 
will  not,"  he  says,  "be  enough  food  and  there  will  not  be  enough 
shipping.  .  .  .  We  must,  to  some  extent,  pool  our  ships  and 
pool  our  food  supply.  And  those  who  do  not  join  the  pool  will 
starve.  I  think  there  will  have  to  be  a  great  and  drastic  inter- 
national association — a  vast  Hoover  commission — to  which  the 
various  state  governments  will  have  to  bow  under  pain  of  their 
people's  starvation." 

Two  other  important  considerations  regarding  the  league  of 
nations  may  appear  at  first  sight  to  be  somewhat  metaphysical. 
Actually,  however,  both  have  very  practical  bearings  and  conse- 
quences. As  Professor  Seignobos  says  in  The  New  Europe? 
the  league  of  nations  is  a  "translation  into  international  terms 

1  Seignobos,   The  New  Europe,  vol.   vi,   No.   77. 


IS2  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

of  the  doctrine  of  the  social  contract."  The  doctrine  of  the  so- 
cial contract  was  formulated  to  explain  how  people  became  as- 
sociated together  under  systematic  governments.  It  stresses  the 
idea  of  a  deliberate  rational  intention  shared  by  a  group  of 
people,  as  the  actuating  motive  in  the  creation  of  government. 
It  minimizes  the  element  of  a  common  necessity.  The  Pilgrims 
signing  the  compact  in  the  cabin  of  the  Mayflower  have  become 
the  classic  example  of  this  theoretical  explanation  of  the  origin 
of  constitutionalism  in  a  conscious  act  of  thought  and  will. 

Yet  this  example  rightly  interpreted  illustrates  the  exact  op- 
posite of  the  social  contract  theory.  Actually  it  illustrates  the 
fact  that  some  common  necessity,  some  situation  in  which  the 
interests  of  each  are  best  served  by  common  action,  is  the  real 
occasion  of  the  signing  of  a  common  contract — Is  the  real  occa- 
sion for  organized  group  activity.  The  Pilgrims  did  not  say :  Go 
to  now,  let  us  have  a  government.  Their  thought  was  rather: 
How  can  we  best  secure  common  loyalty,  joint  protection,  as- 
sured stability  in  the  conduct  of  those  affairs  which  interest  us 
all?  Similarly,  if  the  league  of  nations  is  to  be  built  on  no 
deeper  foundation  than  the  deliberate  rational  intentions  of  the 
several  nations — no  matter  how  good  those  intentions  are — it 
will  partake  of  the  same  unreality  which  vitiates  the  social  con- 
tract theory  itself.  Good  intentions,  rationally  conceived  plans 
of  things  that  ought  to  be — these  are  not  the  groundwork  on 
which  a  sound  and  permanent  superstructure  of  internationalism 
can  be  reared.  If  there  are  to  be  contracts  and  if  contracts  are 
to  have  force  and  effect,  the  ties  that  bind  must  be  ties  of  neces- 
sity, of  common  need,  of  joint  gain  and  advantage  by  the  up- 
holding of  the  contracts. 

Again,  the  stressing  by  all  the  advocates  of  a  league  of  na- 
tions of  the  demand  for  a  "supernational  authority"  has  in  it 
serious  elements  of  risk.  It  is  one  thing  to  say  that  with  respect 
to  any  particular  issue  which  arises  between  nations  there  should 
be  some  one  body  to  which  final  appeal  in  those  special  matters 
may  be  taken.  It  is  quite  another  thing  to  say  that  with  respect 
to  all  issues,  all  appeal  should  be  to  one  great,  supreme  "Inter- 
national High  Court."  We  know,  as  Professor  Seignobos  has 
phrased  it,  that  "modern  civilized  states  are  founded  on  the  idea 
of  national  sovereignty  which,  in  naked  terms,  is  simply  the 
legalization  of  the  force  possessed  by  the  respective  govern- 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  153 

merits."  We  have  seen  the  uses  and  abuses  to  which  that  force 
can  be  put  in  the  hands  of  states,  whether  they  be  nominally 
democratic  or  nominally  autocratic.  Labor,  especially  in  Eng- 
land, has  lately  come  to  have  a  strong  antipathy  for  the  degree 
of  centralized  responsibility  which  the  absolute  sovereignty  of 
the  state  entails.  The  organized  workers  the  world  over  have 
come  to  fear  the  state  to  the  extent  that  the  state  means  not 
common  action  for  the  common  good  but  rather  action  enforced 
upon  the  people  by  a  dominant  governing  group  (regardless  of 
how  that  group  gets  it  power).  Claims  of  absolutism,  of  final 
authority  and  ultimate  power  are  as  inimical  to  personal  freedom 
and  growth  when  they  are  made  in  behalf  of  states  as  when 
made  in  behalf  of  churches  or  institutions  of  any  kind. 

For  these  reasons  the  practice  of  absolute  sovereignty  and 
faith  in  it  are  everywhere  on  the  wane.  The  power  of  the  state, 
as  state,  promises  to  decline  as  power  for  public  and  social  con- 
trol is  better  organized  through  functional  and  more  or  less  vol- 
untary groups. 

Yet  in  the  face  of  this  tenderfcy  people  are  proposing — and 
labor  is  supporting  the  idea — not  alone  to  have  one  supreme 
source  of  authority  in  international  matters,  but  to  enforce  its 
decrees  by  the  use  of  an  overwhelming  aggrandizement  of  inter- 
nationalized force.  This  idea  gets  its  clear  acknowlegment  in 
the  title  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace.  I  repeat  that  as  re- 
spects any  one  question  over  territorial  divisions  or  matters  of 
economic  adjustment  between  nations  it  may  be  necessary  and 
practical  to  create  a  temporary  umpire  to  secure  adjustment. 
But  it  is  a  fair  question  whether  the  transfer  of  absolutism  in 
sovereignty  from  the  state  to  the  super-state  (which  is  what  the 
proposal  for  a  highly  centralized  league  to  enforce  peace  really 
conies  to)  would  not  be  paying  too  dearly  for  a  very  doubtful 
gain. 

Mr.  G.  D.  H.  Cole  in  his  "Self  Government  in  Industry"  pro- 
poses that  within  the  state  the  problem  of  adjusting  the  claims 
of  sovereignty  to  the  claims  of  personality  can  be  solved  by 
dividing  sovereignty  between  the  supreme  organization  of  the 
nation  in  its  producing  capacity  (an  industrial  parliament)  and 
the  supreme  organization  of  the  consumers  (the  present  political 
parliaments).  If  issues  come  to  a  deadlock  between  these  two 
groups,  the  only  recourse,  as  he  conceives  it,  is  to  effect  what- 


154  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

ever  ultimate  adjustment  is  possible  without  an  appeal  to  force. 
In  the  contest  for  power  between  the  state  as  producer  and  the 
state  as  consumer,  the  individual  gets  his  chance  to  preserve 
and  advance  the  claims  of  personality  and  freedom.  Perhaps 
this  approach  has  its  suggestion  for  our  thinking  in  international 
affairs.  Certainly  it  is  becoming  daily  clearer  that  if  interna- 
tional government  means  the  re-establishment  of  absolute  sov- 
ereignty on  a  basis  twice  removed  from  popular  control,  the 
weakness  of  that  government  will  be  fundamental  and  the  al- 
legiance it  can  summon  will  diminish  as  soon  as  its  exercise  of 
power  becomes  significant. 

But  let  no  one  imagine  that  for  these  reasons  the  league  of 
nations  is  an  impractical  suggestion.  The  foregoing  discussion 
has  attempted  only  to  point  to  the  dangers  inherent  in  the  popu- 
lar understanding  of  the  idea.  The  central  notion  of  joint  action 
on  those  problems  which  the  nations  share  and  which  can  find 
no  solution  in  the  absence  of  joint  action  is  fundamental.  I  am 
only  asking  for  a  slight  shift  in  emphasis  in  our  thinking  about 
the  league.  The  task  really  is  to  find  the  problems  upon  which 
the  nations  admit  the  need  for  joint  action,  and  to  advocate  the 
creation  of  supernational  bodies  which  are  adapted  to  solving 
each  particular  problem  in  question,  whether  it  be,  for  example, 
distribution  of  the  world's  wheat  or  fertilizer  supply,  the  pro- 
tection of  patents  and  copyrights,  a  reserve  board  to  administer 
an  international  gold  clearance  fund,  the  framing  of  uniform 
labor  laws  for  the  nations,  or  the  adjustment  of  territorial 
boundaries. 

The  league  of  nations  will  be  effective,  real  and  successful  to 
the  extent  that  it  directs  its  attention  to  analyzing  the  common 
needs  of  the  nations  and  to  instituting  functional  organizations 
of  administration  and  control.  This  is  its  first  important  work. 
Far  from  being  without  function,  the  league  has  this  indispen- 
sable task.  It  must  set  up  under  sound  representative  control 
agencies  calculated  to  solve  the  problems  upon  which  the  nations 
must  cooperate  if  they  are  to  be  solved  at  all. 

This  brings  us,  I  believe,  to  a  point  of  definite  intersection 
between  the  idea  of  an  international  political  structure  and  the 
demand  for  world  control  of  economic  matters  like  raw  ma- 
terials and  shipping.  The  workers  will  find  in  the  league  an 
instrument  of  control  in  the  economic  sphere  which  will  give 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  155 

abundant  promise  of  vital  social  usefulness.  They  may  even  find 
that,  in  demanding  genuine  international  control  over  the  dif- 
ficult matters  of  industrial  readjustment,  they  are  in  that  way 
best  effecting  the  creation  of  a  society  of  nations.  This  society 
may  very  possibly  grow  first  out  of  the  agencies  of  economic 
control  which  the  war  has  brought  and  only  afterwards  come  to 
take  on  the  desirable  attribute  of  a  political  superstate. 

But  should  this  happen,  labor  will  have  to  be  zealously  on 
guard  against  two  dangers.  It  must  be  sure  that  these  interna- 
tional agencies  are  absolutely  above  any  suspicion  of  maintaining 
or  erecting  economic  barriers.  And,  in  order  to  have  assurance 
on  this  first  point,  it  must  be  certain  that  the  national  repre- 
sentation on  these  world  bodies  is  genuinely  in  the  national  in- 
terest, and  not  in  the  interest  of  special  privileged  groups  in  any 
of  the  affected  countries. 

Whatever  world  organization  is  projected,  there  can  be  no 
deep-rooted  and  abiding  peace  and  good  will  among  the  nations 
in  the  absence  of  a  definite  motive  to  administer,  as  the  workers 
have  finely  said,  "the  resources  of  every  country  for  the  benefit 
not  only  of  its  own  people,  but  also  of  the  world." 


THE  STRUCTURE  OF  LASTING  PEACE  : 

Why  the  constitution  of  a  league  of  nations  ought  to  be  the 
first  proposition  in  the  agenda  of  the  peace  conference  should  be 
obvious  enough.  Once  certain  principles  of  public  law  are  es- 
tablished, the  adjudication  of  all  specific  racial,  territorial,  eco- 
nomic, and  military  issues  will  follow  easily  and  smoothly 
enough  from  them.  The  converse  is  not  true.  Let  these  issues 
be  taken  up  severally  and  separately,  without  regard  to  an  inter- 
national rule,  and  the  peace  conference  will  become  a  bargain 
counter  between  dickering  diplomats  representing  military 
forces.  The  specific  adjudications  will  preclude  a  general  prin- 
ciple which  must  necessarily  contradict  them.  At  best  we  shall 
have  restored  a  precarious  balance  of  power;  at  worst  we  shall 
resume  fighting.  If  the  peace  conference  be  permitted  to  begin 
at  the  wrong  end  of  the  series  of  problems,  there  is  little  hope 
for  a  good  end  to  the  conference. 

1  By  Horace  Meyer  Kallen,  author  of  "The  Structure  of  Lasting  Peace," 
published  by  the  Marshall  Jones  Co.,  Boston.  1918.  Dial.  p.  180.  Feb- 
ruary 28,  1918. 


I56  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Whether  or  not  it  begins  at  the  right  end  will  depend  on  two 
factors.     These  are  the  pressure  of  enlightened  public  opinion 
upon  it  and  the  personnel  of  the  conference  itself.    The  former 
must  be  awakened  by  free  discussion;   the    latter  will  be  de- 
termined by  the  manner  of  their  choice  and  the  considerations 
leading  to  it.     In  this  regard  the  experience  of  the  "sovereign 
and    independent"    American    states    is    illuminating.     At    the 
Constitutional  Convention  the  only  statesman  who  had  also  been 
a  member  of  the  Continental  Congress  that  had  conducted  the 
war  against  England,  was  James  Madison.  The  rest  were  "demi- 
gods" who  had  won  the  confidence  of  the  citizens  of  their  states 
through  very   specific  and   signal    service    during  the  war   or 
through   intellectual   leadership   during  and   after  it.     So   now. 
Diplomatists  are  by  training,  habit,  and  usage  unfit  for  the  par- 
ticular service  in  hand.     Servants  of  international  conflict  for 
exclusive  national  advantage,  their  skill  is  only  in  the  arts  of  in- 
nuendo and  dickering  which  such  service  demands.    They  would 
be  as  unsuited  to  a  task  requiring    frankness    and  mutual  ac- 
commodation as  a  pork-magnate  to  settle  a  strike  in  his  own 
packing  plant.     The  men  needed  are  the  men  of  international 
mind,  who  have  been  studying  these  diplomatists  in  action,  who 
are  aware  of  the  defects  of  present  state  system,  and  who  have 
thought  out  alterations  and  improvements.    Such  men  are  Sidney 
Webb,  Brailsford,  Henderson,  Lowes  Dickinson,  Norman  Angell 
in  England;  Thomas  and  his  fellow  Socialists  in  France;  the 
members  of  the  present  Russian  government  and  innumerable 
others  in  Russia;  John  Dewey,  Louis  Brandeis,  Secretary  Baker, 
David  Starr  Jordan,  and  Tharsten  Veblen  in  America.    And  so 
in  every  country.     Representatives  should  be  chosen  from  the 
effective  leadership  of  that  great  body  of  sentiment  and  opinion 
which  has  for  the  last  quarter  of  a  century  kept  the  creation  of 
a  league  of  nations  and  the  establishment  of  lasting  peace  con- 
stantly before  the  minds  of  men,  which  has  so  taught  these  ideals 
that  the  present  war  is  unique  in  that  the  democratic  urge  to  see 
it  through  to  victory  is  the  community  of  sentiment  and  opinion 
against  all  war.    In  short,  a  league  of  nations  can  be  most  effec- 
tively established  only  by  representatives  who  are  for  it  by  habit 
of  mind  as  well  as  desire,  who  have  given  it  prolonged  study, 
and  have  made  themselves  expert  in  the  programme  of  its  in- 
auguration. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  157 

But  there  is  yet  a  further  necessity  in  the  delimitation  of  per- 
sonnel. "Self-determination"  for  nationalities,  sincerely  applied, 
would  give  place  and  voice  in  the  conference  to  representatives 
of  all  nationalities  whose  fate  and  status  the  conference  is  to 
decide.  An  autonomous  Poland,  for  example,  is  undoubtedly 
desirable,  but  the  unspeakable  Polish  overlords  maintain  a  vicious 
hegemony  over  Lithuanians,  Letts  and  Jews,  no  less  than  over 
Polish  peasants.  Lithuanians,  Letts  and  Jews  as  well  as  Poles 
should  have  voice  and  place  at  the  peace  conference.  Serbo- 
Croats,  Bohemians,  Poles,  Jews,  Rumans  should  represent 
Austria  no  less  than  Magyars  and  Germans.  Arabs,  Armenians, 
Kurds,  to  mention  just  a  few,  should  have  voice  and  place 
equally  with  the  Osmanli  Turks  for  the  Ottoman  empire.  How 
the  representatives  of  the  minorities  are  to  be  elected,  what  their 
proportionate  weight  should  be,  are  questions  to  be  solved  by 
free  discussion  and  public  opinion.  That  the  cases  for  their 
peoples  must  be  put  by  the  chosen  representatives  of  these 
peoples,  that  they  must  necessarily  have  a  voice  in  deciding  their 
own  fate  in  the  community  of  nations,  is  beyond  argument.  So 
much  so,  indeed,  that  following  the  principle  involved,  Mr.  Nor- 
man Angell  suggests  the  representation  not  alone  of  nationalities 
but  also  of  political  parties  within  nations,  according  to  their 
numerical  strength.  Thus  Germany  would  be  represented  by  her 
Socialists  as  well  as  by  the  party  in  power,  England  by  her 
Laborites  as  well  as  by  her  Liberals  and  Conservatives,  and  so 
on.  In  this  way  fundamental  differences  in  political  principle 
would  get  representation,  no  less  than  differences  in  national 
character  and  interest. 

What  the  peace  conference  defining  itself  as  such  a  congress 
would  need  to  establish  is  the  law  of  a  minimum  genuine  inter- 
national control.  Now  all  political  control  consists  in  the  exer- 
cise of  two  functions.  One  is  limitation;  the  other,  liberation. 
Limitation  and  liberation  are  distinct  but  not  different,  since 
every  just  and  relevant  limitation  is  a  liberation — witness  the 
traffic  policeman.  International  limitation  would  apply  to  na- 
tional armaments,  to  quarrels  between  states  over  the  "stakes  of 
diplomacy,"  to  quarrels  within  states  over  national  hegemonies. 
The  limitation  of  armament  is  of  course  basic.  For  no  matter 
what  may  be  the  provocation  to  a  fight,  the  lack  of  weapons 
compels  the  substitution  of  persuasion  for  blows  and  funda- 


I58  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

mentally  alters  the  focus  of  the  "national  honor,"  a  figment  for 
the  defense  of  which  most  blows  are  struck.  Hence  the  Inter- 
national Congress  should  determine  for  the  nations  of  the  world, 
as  the  Continental  Congress  was  by  the  Articles  of  Confedera- 
tion empowered  to  determine  for  the  original  thirteen  American 
States,  the  extent  of  the  armament  of  each  state.  The  simplest 
way  to  do  this  would  be  to  fix  annually  the  amount  of  money 
each  state  might  spend  on  armament.  Control  of  expenditure 
would  require  the  complete  socialization  of  the  manufacture  of 
munitions,  its  subordination  to  the  inspection  and  control  of  an 
international  commission  on  armaments  and  absolute  publicity 
of  records  and  accounts.  All  uses  of  armament  should  require 
license  from  the  International  Congress,  particularly  such  uses 
as  go  by  the  euphemism  "puntive  expedition."  Failure  to  carry 
out  these  provisions  or  to  submit  to  the  rule  of  the  Interna- 
tional Congress  should  be  regarded  tantamount  to  a  declaration 
of  war.  It  should  be  regarded  with  respect  to  the  other  causes 
of  quarrel  between  and  within  states.  Interstate  disputes  of 
whatever  nature  should  be  submitted  to  the  International  Con- 
gress, which  would  be  also  the  highest  and  final  court.  There 
has  been  a  good  deal  of  silly  differentiation  between  "justiciable" 
and  "non- justiciable"  disputes,  but  there's  nothing  that's  one  or 
the  other  but  thinking  makes  it  so.  All  group  disputes  are  justi- 
ciable if  public  opinion  says  they  are.  When  the  International 
Congress  has  passed  on  them,  they  are  settled.  Failure  to  accept 
the  decision  of  the  Congress  should  automatically  constitute  a 
challenge  of  international  power  and  be  dealt  with  accordingly. 

The  devices  for  dealing  with  such  failure  are  not  exclusively 
military.  The  military  machine,  indeed,  should  be  the  last  re- 
sort. Initially,  there  is  the  tremendous  force  of  public  opinion, 
which  the  Church  wielded  in  the  middle  ages  as  the  Excom- 
munication and  the  Interdict.  These  should  be  revived.  The 
economic,  social,  cultural,  or  total  ostracism  of  states  or  portions 
of  states  involves  tremendously  less  hardship  and  suffering  than 
actual  military  assault  and  in  the  long  run  is  bound  in  an  in- 
dustrial society  like  ours  to  attain  the  same  end,  far  more  than 
in  earlier,  less  interdependent  ones. 

What  degree  of  coercive  power  these  provisions  would  have 
at  the  outset  will  depend  of  course  on  the  will  of  the  signatories 
to  any  international  constitution  not  to  turn  it  into  a  scrap  of 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  159 

paper.  The  governmental  organs  of  the  public  will  can  be  reg- 
ulated only  by  the  public  opinion  of  each  state,  and  the  public 
opinion  of  each  state  can  be  kept  internationally-minded  only  by 
means  of  the  completest  publicity  regarding  all  international . 
relationships.  Publicity  and  education  are  the  cornerstone  of 
any  international  system  that  shall  be  democratic.  Hence  the 
rule  of  publicity  is  a  paramount  limitative  rule. 

The  foregoing  provisions  would,  I  believe,  supply  the  coercive 
force  the  lack  of  which  rendered  the  American  Confederation 
so  instructive  a  failure.  That  they  will  absolutely  prevent  war 
cannot  be  claimed.  Even  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
failed  to  do  that,  and  the  interstate  unity  it  provided  for  became 
a  permanent  constituent  of  American  political  common-sense 
only  with  the  Civil  War.  No  doubt  history  on  the  terrestrial 
scale  will  repeat  history  on  the  continental.  No  doubt  there  will 
be,  as  in  America,  blocs  and  combinations  within  the  combina- 
tion, nullification  and  attempts  at  dissolution;  but  there  will  be 
in  operation  also,  as  in  America,  a  definitely  formulated,  agreed 
to  principle  of  unity,  insuring  mankind  against  a  great  many 
wars  almost  certain  to  come  without  it. 

Yet  the  chief  power  of  this  insurance  would  reside  in  the 
function  of  liberation  that  the  instruments  of  internationality 
would  perform.  Those  turn  on  the  satisfaction  of  the  basic 
wants  of  men,  and  the  consequent  release  of  their  spontaneous 
energies  in  the  creative  activities  their  natures  crave.  Such 
satisfaction  and  release  demand,  as  we  have  already  seen,  a  free 
trade  in  material  commodities  at  least  equivalent  to  the  free 
trade  in  things  of  the  spirit — in  science,  for  example,  or  art,  or 
music.  It  would  be  fundamental  for  the  International  Congress 
to  create  international  commissions  concerning  themselves  with 
the  coordination  of  efforts  to  increase  and  properly  distribute 
the  food  supply,  to  maintain  and  improve  international  health, 
to  maintain  and  keep  internationally  open  the  world's  highways, 
to  secure  the  equality  of  all  men  before  the  law  of  any  land,  to 
expand  and  intensify  the  world's  sense  of  community  by  in- 
ternationally coordinated  education. 

Most  of  these  functions  have  already  been  forced  on  the 
allied  democracies  by  the  exigencies  of  war;  they  would  need 
only  to  be  made  relevant  to  conditions  of  peace.  Such  are  the 
food  and  fuel  administrations,  acting  purely  in  view  of  interna- 


160  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

tional  needs.  Others  existed  long  before  the  war.  Such  are  the 
postal  union,  and  Mr.  David  Lubin's  indispensably  serviceable 
agricultural  institute,  now  living  a  starved  life  in  Italy.  Still 
others  have  gone  on  as  voluntary  and  private  enterprises.  Such 
are  the  various  learned  societies,  particularly  the  medical  and 
the  chemical  societies.  These  would  need  endowment,  endorse- 
ment, establishment  under  international  rule.  In  none  of  these 
enterprises,  please  note,  is  a  novel  material  necessary.  All  the 
institutions  exist.  Attention  needs  only  to  be  shifted  to  their 
cooperative  integration,  expansion,  and  perfection  by  the  con- 
scious joint  effort  of  the  nations  of  the  world  to  turn  them  into 
a  genuine  machinery  of  liberating  international  government. 

The  most  important  instrument  of  internationality  is,  how- 
ever, education.  Take  care  of  education,  Plato  makes  Socrates 
say  in  the  "Republic,"  and  education  will  take  care  of  every- 
thing else.  Internationally,  education  must  rest  on  two  princi- 
ples: one,  that  it  must  be  autonomous;  the  other,  that  it  must 
be  unprejudiced.  Regarding  the  first:  We  have  already  seen 
how,  in  the  case  of  Germany,  the  state's  control  of  education  laid 
the  foundation  for  the  present  war.  The  school  served  the 
state's  vested  interest  in  the  school.  From  the  dark  ages  to  the 
present  day  the  Church  has  held  a  vested  interest  in  the  school, 
an  interest  from  which  events  have  more  or  less  freed  it,  but 
which  still  makes  itself  felt.  With  the  rise  of  private  educational 
institutions  or  the  secularization  of  theological  ones — such  as 
Harvard  or  Yale  or  Princeton — with  the  elaboration  of  the  pub- 
lic school  systems  of  the  different  states  of  this  country  or  any 
other,  the  powers  of  government,  visible  or  invisible,  have  de- 
termined largely  what  should  and  what  should  not  be  taught, 
what  is  true  and  what  is  false,  always  from  the  point  of  view  of 
the  interests  of  these  powers.  Heresy  has  been  consistently  per- 
secuted, with  means  varying  from  the  auto-da-fe  of  the  Church 
to  the  more  delicate  tools  of  contemporary  university  trustees  or 
school  committees.  Heresy  consists  of  that  which  is  not  in 
accord  with  the  interests  or  prejudices  of  the  ruling  power. 

Now  the  art  of  education  involves  three  forces:  First,  its 
theme — the  growing  child,  whose  creative  spontaneities  are  to  be 
encouraged,  whose  capacities  for  service  and  happiness  are  to 
be  actualized,  intensified,  and  perfected.  Second,  the  investigator 
and  inventor  who  discovers  or  makes  the  material  and  machin- 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  161 

ery  which  are  the  conditions  of  the  child's  life  and  growth, 
which  liberate  or  repress  these.  Third,  the  teacher  who  trans- 
mits to  the  child  the  knowledge  of  the  nature  and  use  of  these 
things,  drawing  out  its  powers  and  enhancing  its  vitality  by 
means  of  them.  Obviously,  to  the  last  two,  to  the  discoverers 
and  creators  of  knowledge,  and  to  its  transmitters  and  dis- 
tributors, to  these  and  to  no  one  else  beside,  belongs  the  control 
of  education.  It  is  as  absurd  that  any  but  teachers  and  inves- 
tigators should  govern  the  art  of  education  as  that  any  but 
medical  practitioners  and  investigators  should  govern  the  art 
of  medicine.  International  law  would  best  abolish  this  ex- 
ternal control  by  making  the  communities  of  educators  every- 
where autonomous  bodies,  vigorously  cooperative  in  an  in- 
ternational union.  Within  this  union  the  freest  possible 
movement  of  teachers  and  pupils  should  be  provided  for, 
exchanges  of  both  between  all  nations  to  the  end  of  attain- 
ing the  acme  of  free  trade  in  habits  and  theories  of  life,  in 
letters,  and  in  methods. 

Regarding  the  second  principle  of  internationalized  educa- 
tion— that  it  must  be  unprejudiced:  This  requires  the  systematic 
internationalization  of  certain  subject-matters.  In  the  end,  of 
course,  all  subject-matters  get  internationalized.  The  process  is, 
however,  too  slow  and  too  dangerous  with  respect  to  some  of 
these,  history  being  the  most  flagrant.  Compare  any  collection 
of  history  textbooks  with  any  similar  collection  in  physics,  for 
example,  and  you  will  find  the  latter  possessed  of  a  unanimity 
never  to  be  attained  in  the  former.  Why?  Because  every 
hypothesis  in  physics  is  immediately  tested  in  a  thousand  labora- 
tories and  the  final  conclusion  is  the  result  of  the  collective  en- 
terprise of  all  sorts  and  conditions  of  physics.  In  the  writing 
of  history  such  cooperative  verification  never  occurs.  Most  his- 
tories, particularly  those  put  into  the  hands  of  children,  utter 
vested  interests,  not  scientifically  tested  results;  they  utter  sec- 
tarian or  national  vanity,  class  privilege,  class  resentment,  and  so 
on.  Compare  any  English  history  of  the  American  Revolution 
with  any  American  history!  Fancy  the  wide  divergence  of  as- 
sertion between  friends  and  enemies  in  the  matter  of  German 
atrocities!  Naturally,  the  interpretation  of  historic  "fact"  must 
and  should  vary  with  the  interpreter,  but  the  designation  of  the 
same  "fact"  should  clearly  be  identical  for  all  interpreters.  To 


162  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

keep  education  unprejudiced  requires  therefore  the  objective 
designation  of  historic  fact — "historic"  to  mean  the  recorded 
enterprise  of  all  departments  of  human  life.  The  "facts"  of 
history  should  be  attested  by  an  international  commission.  So 
the  second  function  of  education  is  served. 

With  this  we  have  established  the  full  pattern  of  the  house 
of  peace — an  international  democratic  congress,  limiting  arma- 
ments, judging  disputes,  coordinating  and  harmonizing  the  great 
national  institutions  by  means  of  which  men  get  food  and 
clothing  and  shelter  and  health  and  happiness,  making  for  a 
free  exchange  of  all  excellence,  punishing  default  with  interdict 
or  excommunication  or  war,  resting  its  authority  upon  public 
opinion  and  strengthening  it  by  internationalized  education. 


THE  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS1 

The  experience  of  Rome  in  ancient  times  shows  us  what  the 
Empire  of  the  Caesars  did  for  the  enfranchisement  and  peace  of 
the  universe,  so  long  as  it  continued  to  be  a  league  of  nations. 
The  peoples  which  made  up  that  Empire  did  not  depend  upon  an 
Emperor,  but  upon  a  political  association,  a  body  of  senators, 
magistrates,  and  citizens ;  and  they  realized  that  they  had  at  the 
same  time  a  great  and  a  smaller  country. 

This  happy  equilibrium  was  destroyed  on  the  day  when  the 
Roman  Empire  undertook  to  transform  itself  into  a  single  en- 
tity; when  it  ceased  to  be  an  organization  of  different  nations 
and  cities,  and  mingled  all  that  it  included  in  one  confused 
whole,  without  proper  differentiation. 

In  the  Middle  Ages  we  have  the  example  of  the  Church, 
which  exercised  rights  of  sovereignty  in  each  of  the  states  under 
its  jurisdiction.  Its  role  in  the  termination  of  wars,  in  the  con- 
clusion of  treaties,  affords  an  example  of  numerous  supra-na- 
tional interventions  which  were  effective  down  to  the  period 
when  religious  authority  was  checkmated  by  the  coming  of 
modern  times  and  the  development  of  lay  elements. 

More  recently  still,  it  has  been  impossible  to  disregard  the 

1  By  Albert  Thomas,  Leader  of  the  new  (French)  Socialist  Party  of 
the  Right.  Atlantic  Monthly,  p.  677.  November,  1918. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  163 

scope  of  international  conventions;  for  example,  those  which 
were  created  to  abolish  slavery  and  to  establish  the  Universal 
Postal  Union. 

Since  the  meeting  of  the  Anti-Slavery  Conference  at  London, 
that  is  to  say,  from  1841  to  1910,  there  have  been  175  inter- 
governmental conferences,  some  of  which  have  met  with  quasi- 
regularity;  for  instance,  there  have  been  fifteen  geodesic  confer- 
ences, thirteen  sanitary,  and  eight  penological. 

Lastly,  there  have  been  the  conferences  at  The  Hague,  where 
we  find  a  significant  alignment  of  the  powers  in  making  import- 
ant decisions.  When,  in  1907,  the  nations  had  assembled  to  enter 
into  compulsory  arbitration  treaties  among  themselves,  the  main 
principle  was  ratified  by  thirty-five  votes,  with  only  five  in  op- 
position— those  of  Germany,  Austria-Hungary,  Greece,  Rou- 
mania,  and  Turkey.  That  is  to  say,  only  eleven  years  ago,  at  the 
time  of  signing  the  arbitration  treaties,  the  Entente  stood  almost 
solidly  on  one  side,  with  the  neutrals,  while  on  the  other  side 
were  the  Central  Empires  and  their  allies.  In  these  beginnings, 
made  in  the  face  of  opposition,  we  see  the  first  form  of  that 
League  of  Nations  which,  since  the  war  began,  has  resolved  it- 
self into  the  present  system  of  inter-Allied  relations.  In  the 
federation  of  all  the  nations  who  are  fighting  for  the  Right ;  not 
one  is,  at  this  moment,  acting  with  entire  independence.  They 
must,  one  and  all,  unite  and  act  together,  not  only  in  what  con- 
cerns their  armies,  but  also  in  respect  to  the  general  conduct  of 
all  the  diplomatic  and  political  affairs  of  the  Alliance. 

In  face  of  the  unity  of  control  of  the  enemy,  the  restrictions 
upon  their  individual  sovereignty  to  which  the  Allied  nations 
assent  go  constantly  deeper  and  deeper.  Every  day  further 
progress  is  made  among  them  toward  a  closer  and  closer  bond 
of  union,  a  subordination  of  all  alike  to  the  common,  higher  in- 
terest which  guides  them  and  unites  them  in  this  conflict. 

This  bond  of  union,  freely  accepted,  and  this  subordination 
of  all  to  the  general  interest,  have  extended  from  the  general 
conduct  of  the  war  to  the  domain  of  supplies,  of  finances— in  a 
word,  step  by  step,  to  the  whole  life  of  the  nations. 

The  reciprocal  oversight  thus  exercised  does  not  appear  in 
the  light  of  an  annoyance  or  an  encroachment  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, as  a  guaranty  and  constant  assurance  of  the  continuity 


164  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

and  fair  distribution  of  the  efforts  of  each  one  of  the  nations  in 
the  common  struggle. 

In  this  closely  knit  bond  of  the  Entente,  the  smaller  nations 
are  neither  sacrificed,  nor  even  subordinated  more  than  the 
greater  ones,  to  the  general  interest.  But  they  feel  that  they 
stand  on  an  equality  as  to  their  rights,  no  less  than  as  to  their 
duties,  in  the  councils  which  decide  upon  the  common  action  and 
upon  the  means  of  putting  it  in  execution.  It  was  these  coun- 
cils which  reached  an  agreement  to  define  our  war-aims.  They 
will  lay  down  our  terms  of  peace  also,  which  will  include  no  pri- 
vate terms  for  any  member  of  the  Entente. 

We  see,  then,  that  it  has  been  found  to  be  necessary,  in  order 
to  bring  the  war  to  a  successful  issue,  to  establish  between  the 
various  nations  of  the  Entente  a  system  of  international  rela- 
tions, more  strictly  defined  and  more  restrictive  of  their  in- 
dividual sovereignty  than  would  be  possible  in  times  of  peace. 
And  this  is  the  decisive,  peremptory  argument  which  answers 
by  anticipation  all  the  objections  as  to  practical  obstacles  in  the 
way  of  the  creation  of  the  League  of  Nations.  What  remains 
to  be  solved  is  nothing  in  comparison  with  what  has  been  solved 
and  with  the  benefits  we  may  expect  to  derive  therefrom. 

If  the  League  of  Nations  had  been  in  existence  in  August, 
1914,  Germany  probably  would  not  have  declared  war;  but  even 
if  she  had  dared  to  do  so  in  defiance  of  the  conventions  signed 
by  her,  all  the  nations  which  are  willing  to  guarantee  justice  and 
the  law  would  have  found  themselves  compelled  to  enter  at  once 
into  the  conflict.  Instead  of  intervening  without  concert  and 
one  by  one,  all  the  nations  of  the  Entente  would  have  come 
forward  together,  armed  and  ready  to  defend  the  Right,  at  the 
precise  moment  in  August,  1914,  when  the  crime  was  committed. 

Such  is  the  world-organization  at  which  we  aim,  and  which 
has  been  proved  to  be  practicable  by  the  experience  of  four  years 
of  war.  It  is  in  process  of  realization;  to  perfect  it,  nothing 
more  is  needed  than  perseverance  on  the  part  of  the  govern- 
ments, and  the  concurrence  of  all  the  free  nations. 

*  **#  **#  ****** 

To  progress  from  the  anarchical  condition  of  the  world  be- 
fore the  war  to  a  complete  organization  deserving  the  name  of 
a  League  of  Nations  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word— that  will 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  165 

unquestionably  be  a  long,  long  road;  but  we  can  clearly  make 
out  the  first  stage,  which  we  can  traverse  during  the  war. 

A  court  of  arbitration  must  be  set  up — that  is  to  say,  a 
method  of  procedure  for  settling  controversies  between  nations, 
analogous  to  that  which  has  already  been  resorted  to  in  a  cer- 
tain number  of  cases.  But  to  avoid  the  repetition  of  an  experi- 
ment which  was  tried  in  the  last  decades  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, and  of  which  the  acid  test  of  this  war  has  demonstrated 
the  inadequacy,  we  must  invest  the  tribunal  with  the  function  of 
drawing  up  the  rules  to  be  applied,  and  reinforce  it  with  the 
power  to  execute  them. 

In  reply  to  President  Wilson's  eloquent  appeal  in  favor  of 
compulsory  arbitration,  we  saw  last  year  the  Central  Empires, 
and  even  the  Sultan  of  Turkey  himself,  give  in  a  solemn  adhe- 
sion to  the  principle.  There  was  just  one  small  restric- 
tion: the  principle  of  arbitration  was  accepted  by  the 
representatives  of  our  adversaries  only  with  reservation  of  the 
Vital  interests'  of  either  of  the  three  Empires  concerned.  We 
know  to-day,  by  the  example  of  the  treaty  of  Brest-Litovsk, 
what  those  Empires  mean  by  their  Vital  interests,'  and  how  far 
they  carry  their  contempt  of  the  most  legitimate  interests  of 
other  nationalities. 

Of  course,  nations  more  considerate  of  the  rights  of  others 
might  refrain  from  such  excesses;  but  we  must  recognize  none 
the  less  that  an  attitude  of  distrust  with  respect  to  any  given 
system  of  unconditional  arbitration  is  altogether  justifiable,  even 
for  states  honestly  well  disposed  to  the  principle. 

The  supra-national  organization  should  therefore  take  for  its 
immediate  task  to  establish  the  essential  rights  likely  to  be 
agreed  upon  by  the  participating  nations.  General  formulae  are 
not  enough.  Upon  general  formulae  the  whole  world  may  de- 
clare itself  to  be  in  accord— even  Chancellor  von  Hertling  and 
President  Wilson;  but  as  soon  as  we  come  to  precise  applica- 
tions, unconquerable  opposition  appears. 

The  supra-national  organization  will  have  to  study  one  after 
another,  in  connection  with  the  great  principles  offered  for  its 
scrutiny,  the  formulae  and  the  rules  capable  of  transforming  a 
general  platonic  ideal  into  a  workable  law,  susceptible  of  prac- 
tical judicial  execution. 

This  scheme  may  seem  over-ambitious,  and  so  it  would  be,  in 


166  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

fact,  if  it  were  proposed  to  solve  all  questions  at  a  single  stroke ; 
to  secure  at  the  first  attempt  a  complete  code  of  relations  be- 
tween the  different  states.  But  we  consider,  on  the  contrary, 
that,  in  this  more  surely  than  in  any  other  matter,  the  questions 
to  be  solved  must  be  divided  into  categories.  Sufficient  unto  the 
day  is  the  evil  thereof.  Let  us  give  to  this  organization,  to  begin 
with,  the  general  commission  to  establish  and  maintain  between 
its  constituents,  as  well  as  with  regard  to  all  others,  the  law  of 
nations  as  defined  by  parties  contracting  under  it. 

This  would  relieve  us  from  the  necessity  of  bothering  our 
minds  immediately  about  a  host  of  problems,  and  would  also 
enable  us  to  promulgate  the  most  essential  and  most  urgent  rules 
looking  to  the  conclusion  of  the  present  conflict. 

But  when  these  rules  shall  have  been  once  laid  down,  when 
the  law  of  nations  shall  have  been  formulated,  there  will  still  be 
left  for  us  to  face  the  most  serious  difficulty  of  all — the 
stumbling-block  which  has  thus  far  caused  the  breakdown  of 
all  the  plans  of  the  pacifists :  that  is  to  say,  the  creation  of  an 
executive  force  at  the  service  of  this  law,  and  of  penalties  to 
be  imposed  upon  those  who  may  be  tempted  to  violate  it. 

Such  penalties  are  possible;  different  categories  have  been 
suggested.  The  first,  which  have  sometimes  aroused  a  smile  of 
incredulity,  have  nevertheless  real  merit.  They  take  the  form  of 
an  appeal  to  be  made  to  public  opinion,  to  the  opinion  of  the 
whole  world.  Our  adversaries,  who,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
war,  defied  this  opinion  so  far  as  possible,  have  finally  recog- 
nized its  importance.  They  have  put  forth  their  utmost  efforts, 
by  means  of  a  propaganda  no  less  false  than  frantic,  to  reverse, 
not  only  in  neutral  countries,  but  among  the  Allies,  the  moral 
judgment  which  they  saw  to  be  altogether  adverse  to  them. 
They  have  resorted  to  all  possible  methods  to  cast  upon  us  the 
responsibility  for  the  conflict,  or,  at  least,  for  its  continuance. 
And  this  fact  demonstrates  the  unquestionable  efficacy  of  moral 
penalties. 

There  are  also  the  economic  penalties,  the  most  potent  of 
which  are  the  boycott,  reprisals,  expulsions,  sequestrations, 
judicial  isolation,  the  economic  blockade,  and  the  abolition  or 
restriction  of  international  commerce. 

All  these  methods,  which  have  been  utilized  during  the  war, 
must  be  retained  after  the  war,  against  powers  which  might 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  167 

still  claim  to  dominate  the  world;  which  should  refuse  to  recog- 
nize the  rules  and  principles  established  by  common  action.  Our 
adversaries  attach  very  great  importance  to  this  species  of  coer- 
cion. They  are  tremendously  anxious  to  find  out  to  what  extent 
and  for  how  many  years  the  'economic  weapon'  will  be  used 
against  them  after  the  cessation  of  hostilities. 

It  is  certain  that  this  economic  weapon  is  to-day,  and  will 
remain,  a  most  powerful  one  in  the  hands  of  the  Allies.  But  in 
order  to  assure  the  possibility  of  its  employment  as  long  as  may 
be  necessary,  we  must  be  prepared  to  support  it  at  need  by  mil- 
itary force. 

At  this  point,  we  have  to  deal  with  the  problem  of  creating 
a  military  force  in  the  service  of  the  law  of  nations,  whose  duty 
it  shall  be  to  compel  obedience  to  the  decisions  made  by  the 
League  of  Nations;  and  we  find  ourselves  confronted  by  two 
equally  vital  requirements  which  seem  contradictory.  On  the 
one  hand,  we  are  convinced  that,  if  this  war  does  not  result  in 
lessening  for  the  future  the  burden  of  an  armed  peace,  we  shall 
have  accepted  to  no  purpose  all  the  sacrifices  which  it  has  al- 
ready cost  us.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  unless  we  are  to  fall 
asleep  prematurely  in  the  delusions  from  which  our  Russian 
friends  have  just  had  such  a  cruel  awakening,  we  face  the  ne- 
cessity of  maintaining,  in  the  service  of  the  very  peace  that  we 
seek  to  establish,  a  force  strong  enough  to  punish  infractions  of 
plighted  faith. 

But  these  two  requirements  are  not  so  incompatible  as  they 
seem  at  first  sight.  If  the  limitation  of  armaments  were  im- 
posed on  every  state,  we  can  readily  see  that  the  sum  of  the 
forces  of  all  the  others  exerted  against  an  isolated  state  would 
be  irresistible.  It  would  be  essential,  of  course,  that  there  should 
be  perfect  coordination  between  these  forces — a  connection  so 
intimate  as  to  assure  their  immediate,  simultaneous,  and  there- 
fore effective  employment.  But  there  would  be  no  need  to  place 
all  the  national  armies  under  a  single,  absolute  supra-national 
command;  it  would  suffice  to  maintain,  in  times  of  peace,  the 
close  relation  which  already  exists  between  the  Allied  armies. 

Whatever  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  carrying  through 
such  a  scheme,  the  fact  remains  that  we  cannot  evade  the  prob- 
lem. If  we  do  not  solve  it,  we  shall  fall  back  sooner  or  later 


i68  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

into  the  condition  of  rivalry  and  competition  in  armaments  with 
which  the  world  was  familiar  before  the  present  war. 

Doubtless  the  composition  of  this  international  military  force 
will  be  the  most  delicate  question  for  the  League  of  Nations  to 
settle.  But  other  essential  questions  will  demand  settlement 
with  equal  urgency,  immediately  upon  the  advent  of  peace,  and 
even  before  it  is  concluded. 

Provision  will  have  to  be  made  for  the  economic  life  of  the 
nations  which  have  taken  part  in  the  conflict,  and  for  distribut- 
ing among  them  raw  materials  and  the  means  of  subsistence. 

Finally,  there  will  have  to  be  provided  a  supra-national  au- 
thority which  will  be  indispensable  in  the  matter  of  liquidating 
the  finances  of  the  various  states  and  enabling  them  to  return  to 
a  normal  economic  regime  after  the  tremendous  upheavals 
caused  by  the  war  in  the  economic  life  of  the  whole  world. 

Again,  it  will  be  necessary  to  appeal  for  the  intervention  of 
the  supra-national  authority  to  settle  many  peculiarly  delicate 
and  complex  questions,  as,  for  example,  censuring  the  neutrality 
or  the  freedom  of  the  Dardanelles. 

Here,  then,  are  certain  very  urgent,  very  clearly  defined 
tasks,  which  we  offer  for  the  action  of  the  League  of  Nations. 
It  alone  can  perform  them,  and  reestablish  order  after  the  im- 
mense upheaval  which  will  leave  inmtter  disarray  the  men  and 
the  bodies  politic  of  the  world  before  the  war.  On  all  sides  new 
problems  and  duties  arise,  and  it  is  enough  to  enumerate  them, 
to  show  that,  beside  the  skeptics  who  do  not  believe  in  the 
League  of  Nations,  beside  the  wise  men  who  postpone  them  to 
a  later  date,  if  we  are  idealists, — in  other  words,  fools, — we  are 

very  positive  idealists. 

*         #        *        #         ***         ####*# 

There  has  been  a  deal  of  discussion  as  to  whether  Germany 
should  be  admitted  to  the  League  of  Nations,  or  be  debarred 
therefrom.  It  is  for  her  alone  to  furnish  the  reply. 

It  is  quite  evident  that  imperialist  and  militarist  Germany, 
which  assumes  to  impose  her  domination  upon  Europe  and  to 
hold  the  civilization  of  the  twentieth  century  under  the  per- 
petual menace  of  her  big  guns,  could  find  no  place  in  a  league 
of  nations  destined  to  establish  and  maintain  respect  for  the 
Law.  But  we  should  commit  a  serious  mistake  if  we  imagined 
that  Germany  forms  a  single  mass,  inspired  solely  by  the  ideal 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  169 

of  its  General  Staff,  and  sharing  all  its  aspirations.  However 
feeble  the  reaction  in  Germany  may  be,  it  exists;  numerous 
strikes  offer  to  the  observer  unmistakable  signs  of  internal  dis- 
turbances, and  presage,  if  not  a  revolution,  at  least  an  evolu- 
tion. 

It  is  this  evolution  which  the  world  awaits.  It  is  this  evolu- 
tion which  President  Wilson  predicts  in  the  masterly  address 
delivered  on  July  4  last,  at  the  tomb  of  Washington : — 

"The  blinded  rules  of  Prussia  have  roused  forces  they  knew 
little  of — forces  which,  once  aroused,  can  never  be  crushed  to 
earth  again;  for  they  have  at  their  heart  an  inspiration  and  a 
purpose  which  are  deathless  and  of  the  very  stuff  of  triumph." 

Lord  Grey  of  Fallodon,  in  a  pamphlet  recently  published,  de- 
clares that  the  Allies  cannot  save  the  world  if  Germany  herself 
remembers  nothing  of  the  lessons  of  the  war;  if  she  does  not 
realize  that  militarism  is  the  deadly  enemy  of  mankind. 

To  the  same  purpose  Lord  Curzon  said  in  a  recent  speech  in 
the  House  of  Lords,  "It  is  essential  that  there  shall  be  a  general 
agreement  among  the  nations;  and  to  obtain  a  useful  result,  all 
the  nations  on  earth  must  become  parties  to  it." 

From  all  these  solemn  and  impartial  declarations  it  follows 
that  we  must  not  only  conquer  Germany,  but  convert  her.  And 
that  will  be  the  great,  the  supreme  victory  to  which  President 
Wilson  beckoned  us  when  he  defined  the  principles  of  the 
League  of  Nations. 


THE  DEFEATISTS  1 

One  by  one  the  enemies  of  President  Wilson's  plan  of  a 
League  of  Nations  as  the  instrumentality  of  impartial  justice  at 
the  Peace  Conference  are  coming  out  into  the  open.  .  .  . 

A  peculiarly  interesting  declaration  of  hostility  has  recently 
appeared  in  the  Villager,  a  journal  of  limited  circulation  in 
Westchester  County,  New  York,  whose  expressions  of  opinion 
derive  exceptional  significance  from  the  ability  of  its  editor.  It 
protests  against  Mr.  Wilson's  uncompromising  association  of  a 
League  of  Nations  with  America's  war  aims,  for  reasons  which, 

1  New  Republic,   p.  327.    October  19,  1918. 


i;o  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

if  true,  would  condemn  the  whole  project  as  impracticable  and 
dangerous.  "We  can  and  must  defeat  Germany,"  says  the 
Villager,  "but  we  cannot  defeat  her  ambition."  "We  cannot 
change  her  heart."  The  Germans  are  incorrigible.  The  Allies 
should  treat  them  as  if  under  no  circumstances  could  they  be- 
come worthy  of  confidence.  The  dominant  object  of  the  peace 
settlement  should  be  the  permanent  organization  of  a  pre- 
ponderance of  power,  not  to  promote  impartial  justice,  but  to 
guarantee  the  future  safety  of  an  anti-German  alliance.  A  na- 
tion such  as  Germany  has  proved  herself  to  be  will  cease  to  be 
dangerous  only  because  she  ceases  to  exert  power  and  only  in 
so  far  as  she  ceases  to  exert  power.  Any  association  of  nations 
which  may  result  from  the  President's  efforts  should  be  designed 
as  an  instrument  of  force  so  overwhelming  that  a  policy  of 
future  discrimination  against  Germany  would  be  irresistible. 

The  attitude  towards  the  problem  of  winning  the  war  reg- 
isters a  frank  and  an  illuminating  departure  from  the  former 
attitude  of  such  journals.  Last  fall  and  winter  they  protested 
against  any  statement  or  discussion  of  war  aims  because,  they 
said,  victory  was  the  only  war  aim.  Military  victory  would  be 
all  sufficient  and  would  by  its  own  intrinsic  virtue  teach  the 
German  people  the  indispensable  lesson  and  deliver  the  world 
from  the  threat  of  German  domination.  But  now  that  military 
victory  is  imminent,  the  Villager  assures  us  that  it  is  not  suffi- 
cient and  is  not  the  only  war  aim.  The  defeat  which  the  Allied 
armies  are  inflicting  on  the  Germany  army  at  such  a  terrific  cost 
will  not  impair  the  predatory  disposition  of  the  German  people. 
The  Allies  must  continue  the  war  after  the  war.  The  measure 
and  guarantees  of  the  ultimate  victory  do  not  derive  from  mil- 
itary success,  no  matter  how  overwhelming.  They  derive  from 
the  political  policy  which  prevails  during  and  after  the  peace 
conference.  That  policy,  according  to  journals  such  as  the  Vil- 
lager and  statesmen  such  as  Senator  Lodge,  must  be  determined 
chiefly  by  the  politics  of  power.  Military  victory  in  the  war, 
having  failed  to  effect  any  change  for  the  better  in  the  disposi- 
tion of  the  German  people,  military  policy  and  military  values 
should  mould  the  terms  of  peace. 

Thus  conservatives  are  now  beginning  to  admit  the  impotence 
of  military  victory  alone  to  assure  the  greater  and  more  per- 
manent political  victory  upon  which  the  winning  of  the  war 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  171 

finally  depends.  They  are  in  this  respect  coming  around  to  the 
position  which  has  been  occupied  by  the  New  Republic  before 
and  since  America  entered  the  war.  They  concede  the  need  of 
supplementing  a  victory  of  the  Allied  soldiers  with  a  victory  of 
Allied  statesmanship.  But  the  political  policy  with  which  they 
propose  to  secure  the  fruits  of  military  victory  is  in  sharp  con- 
flict with  that  proposed  by  the  President.  After  concealing  for 
many  months  their  political  solution  of  the  war  under  the  dictum 
that  victory  was  the  only  war  aim,  and  after  condemning  all 
discussion  of  Allied  political  purposes  as  an  attempt  to  win  the 
war  with  words;  they  are  now  gathering  to  defeat  the  solution 
which  the  President  has  explicitly  and  repeatedly  proclaimed  to 
be  the  official  policy  of  the  American  government.  They  may 
well  succeed,  for  they  represent  a  deeply  rooted  tradition  (that 
of  "macht-politik"') — and  intense  emotion  (that  of  fear,  hatred 
and  revenge) — and  a  powerful  body  of  interest  and  opinion  in 
all  the  Allied  countries  (that  which  seeks  to  preserve  the  inter- 
national status  quo  ante).  But  if  they  succeed,  they  will  succeed 
also  in  f rustating  the  generous  emotions  in  defeating  the  liberal 
purposes  and  in  preventing  the  salutary  political  results  which 
the  liberal  democratic  leadership  has  associated  with  the  cause 
of  the  Allies.  What  boots  it  if  we  break  up  Middle  Europe, 
emancipate  the  Slavs,  and  root  out  the  Turks  if  we  do  not  take 
advantage  of  the  victory  over  imperialism  to  organize  a  new 
society  of  nations  based  on  equality  of  right? 

We  wonder  whether  they  have  fully  considered  the  implica- 
tions and  consequences  of  their  possible  success  in  substituting 
a  victory  of  power  for  Mr.  Wilson's  proposed  victory  of  justice. 
In  the  address  to  Congress  asking  for  a  declaration  of  war 
against  Germany  the  President  clearly  indicated  the  liberal  and 
ultimately  conciliatory  nature  of  the  political  purposes  of  which 
military  victory  was  to  be  the  instrument.  In  his  subsequent 
series  of  war  papers  and  speeches,  he  reiterated  and  expanded 
his  original  proposal  for  a  League  of  Free  Nations  as  the  essen- 
tial agency  of  international  justice,  and  for  a  permanent  political 
defeat  of  Prussian  power  politics.  As  a  result  of  these  pledges 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  his  fellow-countrymen  entered  the 
war  sustained  by  the  conviction  that  they  were  fighting  to  give 
birth  to  a  new  world  of  international  peace  and  justice.  Reas- 
sured and  fired  by  his  words,  labor  leaders  in  France  and  Great 


172  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Britain  persuaded  thousands  of  their  followers  to  overcome  war 
weariness  and  to  support  their  governments  without  flinching 
His  winged  words  were  distributed  in  enemy  countries  for  the 
particular  jmrpose  of  gaining  confidence  of  the  Bulgarian, 
Austrian  and  German  people,  and  of  making  them  believe  in  the 
disposition  of  the  Allied  governments  to  work  for  impartial 
justice.  During  all  this  time  these  doubters  and  opponents  of 
the  President's  plan,  except  in  one  or  two  instances,  remained 
silent.  They  permitted  the  victory  for  which  all  were  working 
to  be  associated  with  the  League  of  Nations.  They  conducted 
no  propaganda  in  the  press  which  clearly  revealed  to  the  world 
the  existence  of  any  quarrel  between  Americans  as  to  the  final 
political  solution  of  the  war.  They  never  raised  in  Congress 
the  question  of  repudiating  the  pledge  made  by  the  President 
of  American  participation  in  the  League.  They  were  satisfied 
with  suppressing  their  own  fears,  scruples  and  convictions,  and 
with  abusing  those  of  the  President's  supporters  who  emphasized 
the  need  of  associating  the  winning  of  the  war  with  the  forma- 
tion of  a  League  of  Nations.  Yet  now  in  spite  of  the  unqual- 
ified nature  of  the  President's  pledge,  the  extent  to  which  it  is 
believed  by  the  plain  people  in  all  countries  and  the  suppression 
hitherto  of  overt  opposition,  his  enemies  are  now  planning  to  de- 
feat it.  If  they  succeed,  the  American  citizens  and  the  citizens 
of  other  countries  who  accepted  the  President's  pledge  at  its  face 
value  would  be  tempted  not  without  reason  to  charge  the  Amer- 
ican government  with  being  perfidious. 

It  is  these  opponents  of  the  League  of  Nations  who  are  the 
genuine  defeatists.  If  the  vindictive  passions  which  they  in- 
carnate dominate  the  work  of  the  peace  conference,  democracy 
will  have  fought  the  war  in  vain.  For  no  sooner  is  military 
victory  assured  than  the  opponents  of  democratic  international- 
ism proclaimed  the  moral  and  political  ineffectuality  of  what  the 
armies  have  achieved.  We  must  treat  the  Germans,  although 
defeated,  just  as  if  they  were  not  defeated.  We  must  fear 
them  just  as  much,  and  we  must  take  just  as  many  precautions 
against  them.  And  because  we  fear  them  we  must  use  our  vic- 
tory over  them  chiefly  to  make  them  fear  us.  We  must  treat 
them,  that  is,  much  as  they  would  have  treated  us  and  neutralize 
the  necessary  lack  of  impartial  justice  in  our  policy  by  a  pre- 
ponderance of  power.  In  fine,  we  must  ourselves  adopt  perma- 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  173 

nently  a  politics  based  on  power  as  a  safeguard  against  the  pos- 
sibility of  German  recovery.  We  must  ourselves  organize  into 
an  international  system  the  Prussian  "macht-politik"  as  a  pre- 
caution against  its  use  by  the  Prussians.  They  are  ready  to  have 
Prussianism  conquer  us  just  at  the  moment  of  our  victory  over 
Prussia.  It  is  from  this  fate  that  the  President  has  sought  and 
still  seeks  to  save  the  western  democracies  by  organizing  the 
League  of  Free  Nations.  If  we  needed  any  further  proof  that 
there  was  no  other  way,  the  arguments  and  the  alternative 
policy  of  his  critics  would  supply  it.  They  postulate  the  impos- 
sibility of  any  change  in  the  disposition  of  the  German  people 
as  the  reason  for  a  permanent  system  of  international  dis- 
crimination against  Germany  which  would  itself  act  as  an  in- 
superable barrier  to  any  such  change.  The  Germans  would  be 
offered  a  choice  between  being  the  victims  of  the  new  world 
order  or  its  conquerors.  If  the  counsel  of  these  men  is  fol- 
lowed, the  Allies  will  be  apotheosizing  force  and  perpetuating 
war  as  the  best  method  of  securing  the  fruits  of  a  military  vic- 
tory won  by  the  proclaimed  guardians  of  democratic  liberty. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  THE  LEAGUE  OF 
NATIONS  * 

How  stands  the  project  of  the  League  of  Nations?  Does  it 
go  forward  or  is  it  simply  marking  time?  Since  I  wrote  on 
this  subject  in  the  July  number  of  The  Fortnightly  Review  two 
important  discussions  have  taken  place  in  the  British  Parliament. 
On  June  26th  the  long-adjourned  debate  in  the  House  of  Lords 
on  Lord  Parmoor's  motion  was  resumed,  and  Lord  Curzon 
made  a  carefully  worded  declaration  of  policy.  On  August  ist 
the  House  of  Commons  discussed  the  project  for  the  first  time, 
and  Mr.  Balfour  and  Lord  Robert  Cecil  spoke  favourably  and 
hopefully.  The  Foreign  Secretary  said  that  he  was  prepared  to 
preach  the  doctrine  "vehemently,"  and  there  are  not  many  themes 
which  can  move  Mr.  Balfour  to  vehemence.  Lord  Robert  Cecil 
was  of  opinion  that  "a  workable  plan  for  establishing  this  safe- 
guard against  war  in  the  future  could  be  found,"  and  it  was  the 

*By  J.  B.  Firth,  member  of  the  editorial  staff  of  the  London  Daily 
Telegraph.  In  Fortnightly  Review  for  September,  1918.  p.  367. 


174  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

same  Minister  who  declared  on  another  occasion  that  he  could 
not  remain  for  an  hour  in  any  Administration  which  was  not 
pledged  to  the  League  of  Nations.  When  Lord  Curzon  was 
asked  to  say  definitely  whether  the  Government  were  in  earnest, 
he  replied  "Yes,"  and  added  that  they  were  carefully  exploring 
its  possibilities.  As  for  the  Prime  Minister,  he  never  loses  an 
opportunity  of  applauding  the  principle,  though  he  eschews  de- 
tails. Moreover,  on  this  subject  there  is  no  fear  of  trouble  from 
the  Opposition.  Alas !  The  League  of  Nations  has  become  a 
popular  catchword.  If  there  is  to  be  a  General  Election  late  in 
November  or  December,  all  the  political  parties  will  have  to 
subscribe  to  it,  and  every  candidate  will  pledge  himself  to  sup- 
port any  practical  scheme  that  may  be  put  forward.  The  pledge 
will  not  amount  to  much,  for  anyone  who  refused  to  subscribe 
to  what  he  believed  to  be  a  practical  proposal  for  a  League  of 
Nations  for  the  prevention  of  war,  with  the  awful  experiences 
of  this  war  before  his  eyes,  would  be  either  a  German  or  a 
fiend.  But  that,  unfortunately,  will  not  bring  the  ideal  an  inch 
nearer  to  the  grasp  of  human  statesmen.  It  is  certain,  there- 
fore, that  the  British  Government  will  continue  to  explore  the 
possibilities  of  the  idea  in  the  hope  of  evolving  a  workable 
scheme,  and  that  they  and  the  United  States  will  not  be  satisfied 
till  they  have  persuaded  their  Allies  to  join  with  them  in  setting 
up  some  new  instrument  of  international  machinery  for  the  pre- 
vention of  war,  which  they  will  call  the  League  of  Nations. 

The  British  Government  have  already  taken  one  important 
step.  They  appointed  some  months  ago  "a  very  well-chosen 
Committee" — the  description  is  Mr.  Bal four's — "on  which  inter- 
national law  and  history  were  powerfully  represented,"  to  ex- 
amine and  report.  The  report  has  been  drawn  up,  but  its  con- 
tents have  not  been  divulged.  Neither  Lord  Curzon  nor  Mr. 
Balfour  alluded  to  it;  they  did  not  even  say  that  it  had  been 
considered  by  the  War  Cabinet.  By  a  curious  coincidence  the 
same  official  reticence  is  being  observed  in  France.  There,  too, 
an  authoritative  Commission,  presided  over  by  M.  Bourgeois, 
was  appointed  by  the  Government,  and  issued  its  Report  last 
January.  But  it  has  not  yet  been  published  in  France,  and,  ac- 
cording to  Lord  Curzon,  no  copy  of  it  had  reached  the  British 
Government  on  June  26th.  Why  this  secretiveness,  both  in  Lon- 
don and  Paris?  If  there  had  been  practical  unanimity  in  favour 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  175 

of  the  project  there  could  be  no  reason  for  reserve.  But  it  is 
far  more  likely  that  the  Commissioners  have  reported  in  a  crit- 
ical spirit  and  that  the  two  Governments  do  not  think  it  discreet 
to  make  known  the  fact,  lest  the  powerful  friends  of  the  move- 
ment should  be  discouraged.  Inasmuch  as  the  establishment  of 
a  League  of  Nations  has  been  put  forward  as  one  of  the  princi- 
pal war  aims  of  the  Allies,  it  would  be  a  little  disconcerting  if 
serious  differences  of  opinion  were  disclosed  among  the  Allies 
as  to  the  practicability  of  the  idea.  The  chief  sponsor  of  the 
League  of  Nations  is  President  Wilson,  and  it  is  in  the  United 
States  that  the  most  active  propaganda  in  its  favour  is  being 
carried  on.  They  will  have  the  whole  world  with  them — save 
an  unregenerate  Germany — if  they  can  offer  the  nations  of 
Europe  what  they  all  desire  above  everything  else,  viz. :  Security. 
But  hitherto  the  French  and  British  Governments  seem  to  have 
had  little  luck  in  the  search  which  they  have  conducted  on  their 
own  account. 

In  fact,  the  more  closely  Lord  Curzon's  pronouncement  is 
studied,  the  more  certain  does  it  become  that  at  any  rate  the 
immediate  realisation  of  the  League  of  Nations  as  a  League  to 
Enforce  Peace  is  outside  the  range  of  practical  politics.  (That 
description  of  the  League,  it  should  be  observed,  drew  heated 
protests  in  the  House  of  Commons  from  Pacifist  speakers, 
though  a  League  of  Nations  which  cannot  "enforce"  peace  will 
obviously  not  be  able  to  prevent  war,  and  the  prevention  of  war 
is  surely  the  final  cause  of  the  League.)  Lord  Curzon,  for  ex- 
ample, pointedly  reminded  the  House  of  Lords  that  opinion  in 
this  country  was  "rather  in  advance  of  the  opinion  of  any  of 
our  Allies  save  the  United  States,"  and  he  said  that  if  the 
British  Government  went  ahead  too  quickly,  or  too  abruptly, 
there  was  danger  of  a  rebuff.  That  is  the  official  way  of  stating 
that  British  opinion  is  very  much  in  advance  of  Continental 
opinion,  and  the  truth  is  that  nothing  like  the  same  attention  has 
been  paid  to  the  subject  in  the  French  and  Italian  newspapers 
as  in  the  British.  And  although  the  Report  of  the  French  Com- 
mission has  not  been  published,  it  is  an  open  secret  that  its  judg- 
ment was  adverse  to  any  proposal  for  establishing  an  interna- 
tional force  which  shall  be  always  ready  to  enforce  the  decisions 
of  the  League  upon  a  recalcitrant  member.  That  is  a  fact  of  the 
utmost  consequence,  for  this  international  force  is  vital  to  the 


i;6  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

establishment  of  a  really  effective  League  of  Nations.  It  is  the 
very  keystone  of  the  arch.  The  French  Commission  has  knocked 
it  out,  and  it  may  be  shrewdly  suspected  that  the  British  Com- 
mittee has  done  the  same.  Is  it  not,  therefore,  an  extraordinary 
fact  that  during  the  discussion  in  the  House  of  Commons  a 
month  later  not  a  single  member  alluded  to  the  French  decision, 
and  the  two  Ministers  steered  far  away  from  this  dangerous 
rock?  It  must  have  been  present  to  their  minds,  for  all  the 
speakers  avowed  themselves  warm  friends  of  the  idea  of  the 
League  of  Nations.  Nevertheless,  they  kept  this  circumstance 
in  the  background,  and  with  it  the  equally  important  fact  that 
Lord  Curzon  himself  had  also  most  unmistakably  ruled  out  this 
international  force  when  speaking  on  behalf  of  the  Government 
on  June  26th.  The  passage  is  so  important  that  it  must  be 
quoted  textually: — 

"We  must  try  to  get  some  alliance,  or  confederation,  or  conference, 
to  which  these  states  shall  belong,  and  no  state  in  which  shall  be  at  lib- 
erty to  go  to  war  without  reference  to  arbitration,  or  to  a  conference  of 
the  league,  in  the  first  place.  Then  if  a  state  breaks  the  contract  it  will 
become,  ipso  facto,  at  war  with  the  other  states  in  the  league,  and  they  will 
support  each  other,  without  any  need  for  an  international  police,  in  punish- 
ing or  repairing  the  breach  of  contract.  Some  of  them  may  do  it  by 
economic  pressure.  This  may  apply  perhaps  to  the  smaller  states.  The 
larger  and  more  powerful  states  may  do  it  by  the  direct  use  of  naval  and 
military  force.  In  this  way  we  may  not  indeed  abolish  war,  but  we  can 
render  it  a  great  deal  more  difficult  in  the  future." 

Exit,  therefore,  the  international  force,  and  with  it,  as  I  believe, 
any  prospect  of  an  effective  League  of  Nations,  because  with  it 
goes  the  League's  sanction.  Lord  Curzon  leaves  the  coercion  of 
a  recalcitrant  Power  to  the  mutual  support  of  the  other  mem- 
bers of  the  League.  They  may  use  economic  pressure  or  they 
may  use  military  pressure.  Apparently  there  are  to  be  no  neu- 
trals. All  are,  ipso  facto,  to  be  at  war  with  the  offending 
Power.  They  will  have  to  decide  among  themselves  who  shall 
do  the  fighting.  It  will  not  be  an  easy  or  a  quick  decision.  The 
chances  of  the  League  being  solidly  united  and  welded  together 
by  the  same  interests  and  the  same  motives  are  small.  The  more 
powerful  the  transgressor,  the  smaller  the  chances  and  the 
greater  the  reluctance  to  set  their  forces  in  motion.  The 
abandonment  of  the  idea  of  an  international  army  involves  the 
abandonment  of  the  real  efficiency  of  the  League  itself.  Mr. 
J.  M.  Robertson's  contention  was  sound  that  a  League  of  Na- 
tions ought  to  command  the  immediate  services  of  a  strong 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  177 

military  force,  and  he  suggested,  therefore,  that  "all  members 
of  the  League  should  undertake  to  contribute,  in  the  event  of  it 
being  required,  a  certain  contingent  of  military  force  to  be  used 
under  the  direction  of  the  League  in  the  carrying  out  of  the 
League's  decisions."  That  is  the  clear  logic  of  the  position. 
But,  unfortunately,  as  the  French  Commission  admits,  it  is 
wholly  impracticable.  .  .  .  Let  anyone  consider  the  perpetual 
intrigues  of  the  campaigns  and  alliances  against  Frederick  the 
Great,  or  the  squabbling  in  the  Crimea  where,  as  Kinglake  says, 
the  alliance  of  the  Western  Powers  "lay  in  abeyance  for  five 
days,"  while  St.  Arnaud  and  Raglan  were  completely  at  cross 
purposes.  Or,  coming  to  more  modern  days,  let  Mr.  MacNeil 
recall  the  tedious  wrangling  in  the  so-called  Concert  of  Europe 
over  the  simple  appointment  of  a  Mixed  Commission  of  Euro- 
pean officers  in  Macedonia  before  the  Balkan  wars,  or  the  irrita- 
tion that  arose  over  the  officering  of  the  gendarmerie  in  Persia, 
or  the  insane  jealousies  which  attended  the  preposterous  inter- 
national expedition  which  was  sent  to  China  to  put  down  the 
Boxers,  and  he  will,  if  he  is  candid,  expect  nothing  but  failure 
and  disappointment  from,  an  international  army.  Does  he  find 
his  Irish  omens  so  encouraging?  If  the  flebilis  undo,  of  a  ditch 
like  the  Boyne  cannot  be  bridged,  how  will  he  span  the  boundary 
rivers  of  Europe?  How  can  these  idealists  talk  airily  about  the 
establishment  of  an  international  army  or  the  dispatch  of  an  in- 
ternational expedition  to  deal  with  an  aggressor  against  the 
League  of  Nations,  when  they  see  how  long  it  has  just  taken 
Japan  and  the  United  States  to  come  to  an  understanding  on  the 
subject  of  joint  action  in  Siberia?  Every  hour  was  of  priceless 
value.  Both  Powers  knew  that  the  rehabilitation  of  Russia 
would  be  as  deadly  a  blow  to  Germany  as  her  humiliating  seces- 
sion from  the  ranks  of  the  Allies  was  a  complete  triumph.  Yet 
the  days  and  weeks  were  suffered  to  slip  by  for  political  reasons 
which  are  perfectly  well  known  and  thoroughly  understood. 
Will  it  be  any  different  when  there  is  a  League  of  Nations?  The 
military  difficulties  are  equally  insuperable.  Would  not  an  in- 
ternational army  require  an  international  General  Staff?  If  the 
international  army  were  to  be  ready  for  prompt  and  immediate 
action,  would  it  not  be  necessary  to  concert  measures  before- 
hand and  draw  up  plans  of  campaign?  And  if  all  the  Great 
Powers  of  the  world  were  members  of  the  League,  would  not 


1 78  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

this  lead  to  extraordinarly  embarrassing  situations?  A  proposal 
of  this  enormous  magnitude  is  either  practicable  or  impracti- 
cable. If  it  is  fantastic,  the  super  structure  built  upon  its  inse- 
cure foundation  comes  toppling  to  the  ground.  But  that  is  just 
what  the  enthusiastic  advocates  of  the  League  of  Nations  refuse 
to  recognise.  In  spite  of  Lord  Curzon's  explicit  rejection,  the 
international  army  still  continues  to  find  a  place  in  the  various 
schemes  that  are  put  forward,  because  it  is  necessary  for  their 
full  and  logical  completion,  and  the  fatal  difficulties  in  the  way 
of  its  effective  fulfilment  are  ignored  as  though  they  did  not 
exist. 

The  idea  of  the  League  of  Nations  is  most  popular  where 
least  understood.  Credulity,  as  usual,  is  being  freely  exploited. 
People  are  encouraged  to  assume  that  the  problem  is  simple, 
that  President  Wilson  has  an  infallible  plan,  and  that  the  duty 
of  the  Allies  is  to  follow  his  lead  with  trusting  faith.  Where  the 
dull  eyes  of  British  or  European  statesmen  cannot  pierce  the 
gloom,  his  can.  Where  they  fail  in  pure  idealism,  he  will  suc- 
ceed. Some  of  the  most  earnest  advocates  of  the  League  think 
it  enough  to  "Laugh  at  impossibilities,  And  cry  'It  shall  be 
done.'  "  Professor  Gilbert  Murray,  in  the  course  of  an  eloquent 
pamphlet,  dismisses  the  problem  of  how  to  enforce  peace  in  a 
single  sentence.  "A  number  of  nations,"  he  says,  "which  act  to- 
gether can  be  strong  enough  to  check  an  aggressor,  though  no 
one  of  them  alone  is  so  strong  as  to  threaten  its  neighbours." 
That  is  true  enough  as  a  bare  theoretical  possibility,  and  it  is 
the  only  passage  in  the  pamphlet  in  which  he  alludes  to  the  force 
at  the  disposal  of  the  League.  But  is  this  a  fair  way  to  present 
the  case,  when  it  has  taken  the  Allies  four  years  to  "check"  the 
prodigious  onslaughts  of  Germany,  and  the  war  is  still  being 
waged  on  Allied  soil?  In  all  these  discussions  it  is  Germany 
who  must  be  considered  as  the  potential  contract  breaker:  it  is 
Germany  who,  on  her  past  history  and  on  her  theory  of  the 
rights  of  the  strongest,  will  be  the  probable  aggressor;  it  is 
Germany,  therefore,  for  whose  "checking"  adequate  provision 
must  be  made.  The  truth  is  that  it  is  just  the  enormous  strength 
of  Germany,  therefore,  for  whose  "checking"  adequate  pro* 
vision  must  be  made.  The  truth  is  that  it  is  just  the  enormous 
strength  of  Germany  which  makes  the  advocates  of  the  League 
so  earnest  in  their  endeavours  to  establish  it,  and  which  also 
makes  its  effective  establishment  so  utterly  impossible. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  179 

To  judge  from  their  Press,  Germans  believe  that,  if  the  worst 
comes  to  the  worst,  they  need  only  offer  to  join  what  is  con- 
temptuously called  "the  Wilson-Grey  League  of  Nations"  and 
the  Allies  will  welcome  them  with  joy  to  the  fold.  If  the  Allies 
are  content  with  such  an  ending,  the  League  of  Nations  will  be 
a  death  trap  for  the  free  peoples  of  Europe,  whatever  it  may  be 
for  America,  which,  from  her  size  and  situation,  stands  in  a 
separate  category.  Germany,  in  that  case,  will  not  be  defeated, 
and  German  militarism  will  not  be  overthrown,  for  the  world 
will  not  be  made  safe  for  Democracy  until  the  Hohenzollerns 
have  been  dethroned  and  Germany  has  been  compelled  to  make 
restitution  for  her  crimes.  There  is  no  occasion  to  talk  about 
war  indemnities.  If  the  Central  Powers  are  made  to  pay  merely 
for  the  havoc  they  have  wrought,  and  to  restore  the  factories 
and  machinery  of  which  they  have  so  cunningly  stripped  the 
industrial  districts,  of  Belgium  and  Northern  France,  they  will 
be  financially  crippled  for  long  years  to  come.  The  whole  Ger- 
man people,  which  shares  the  guilt  of  its  rulers  and  would 
greedily  share  their  plunder,  must  be  convinced  that  war  does 
not  pay  by  experiencing  the  ruinous  expensiveness  of  defeat. 
Moreover,  as  Mr.  Balfour  has  well  said,  one  of  the  principal 
duties  of  any  League  of  Nations  will  be  to  maintain  the  "toler- 
able territorial  status"  which  must  be  established  before  the 
League  can  start  with  any  prospect  of  success.  That  involves  a 
drastic  rearrangement  of  the  map  of  Europe,  involving  the  dis- 
memberment of  Austria-Hungary,  the  restoration  to  France  of 
Alsace-Lorraine,  the  creation  of  a  new  Poland,  the  destruction 
of  the  Turkish  Empire  and  the  re-creation  of  a  great  Russia. 
What  a  gigantic  programme  is  spread  before  us !  The  problems 
of  the  Congress  of  Vienna  were  childishly  simple  compared  with 
these,  and  surely  it  is  worth  while  baring  in  mind  that  the 
plenipotentiaries  of  the  victorious  Allied  nations  quarrelled  so 
bitterly  among  themselves  at  that  Congress  that  they  were  ac- 
tually on  the  point  of  turning  their  arms  against  one  another, 
when  they  were  startled  into  sanity  by  the  news  that  the  Devil 
had  broken  loose  again  and  was  marching  on  Paris.  Let  this, 
too,  be  remembered,  that  the  Congress  which  meets  at  the  con- 
clusion of  this  war  to  re-frame  the  boundaries  of  Europe  will 
be  required  to  satisfy  the  intense  longings  of  an  irrepressible 
Nationalism!  And  yet  at  one  and  the  same  time  it  is  to  be 


i8o  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

actuated  by  the  new  spirit  of  internationalism  and  brotherhood 
by  which  alone  the  world  can  be  saved. 

There  are,  indeed,  some  hardy  thinkers  who  profess  to  see  no 
contradiction  here,  and  scarcely  even  a  paradox.  International- 
ism, they  say,  must  be  based  upon  nationalism,  which  is  very 
much  what  the  moral  philosophers  say  when  they  define  altruism 
as  enlightened  selfishness.  Fresh  from  his  prayerful  seances 
with  Madame  Krudener,  Alexander  I,  talked  in  precisely  the 
same  evangelical  style  rather  more  than  a  century  ago,  but  that 
did  not  prevent  him  from  falling  under  the  influence  and  prov- 
ing the  aptest  pupil  of  Metternich.  Everyone  knows  that  na- 
tionalism is  infinitely  stronger  than  internationalism.  Lawyers 
talk  about  the  surrender  of  sovereignty.  If  it  is  surrendered 
to-day,  it  will  be  taken  back  tomorrow.  Remember  Canning's 
exultant  cry  when  he  shook  himself — and  England — loose  from 
the  bonds  and  restraints  of  the  European  Alliance  which  had 
grown  so  irksome.  "No  more  Aeropagus  now !  England  will 
be  free  to  look  after  her  own  interests  in  4ier  own  way."  What 
is  the  real,  permanent,  instinctive  feeling  of  insular  Britons 
towards  Alliances  and  Leagues?  When  the  danger  from  which 
we  have  escaped  is  but  an  evil  memory,  when  the  peril  ahead 
seems  faint  and  distant,  when  the  enemy  is  fawning  and  protest- 
ing and  "Kamerading,"  and  insidiously  getting  back  to  his  foot- 
hold, what  will  be  the  instinct  of  the  average  Briton?  If  someone 
astutely  revives  the  once  popular  cry  of  "Splendid  Isolation," 
will  not  his  heart  leap  up  at  the  sound?  If  there  is  any  prospect 
of  war  and  British  interests  are  not  directly  and  vitally  con- 
cerned, and  if  the  League  of  Nations  desires  the  British  Govern- 
ment not  merely  to  use  the  British  Fleet— that  very  likely  would 
not  be  unpopular — but  to  dispatch  a  military  expedition  on  a 
large  scale,  involving  conscription,  what  then?  Who  would  be 
the  first  to  protest  if  not  the  Socialists  and  Radicals  who  are 
now  so  hot  and  strong  for  the  League?  These  surely  are  fair 
questions.  Great  Britain,  naturally,  has  always  been  the  most 
insularly  minded  Power  in  Europe.  She  has  from  time  to  time 
been  the  backbone  of  Continental  alliances,  but  always  when  the 
direct  danger  to  her  has  blown  over  she  has  relapsed  to  her 
ancient  insular  mood.  This  has  often  been  made  a  ground  of 
reproach  to  her;  it  has  been  said  that  she  is  a  bad  European. 
The  Liberal  tradition  especially  has  almost  always  been  a  non- 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  181 

European  tradition.  Is  the  country  now  ripe  for  a  permanent 
change?  He  is  bold,  indeed,  who  would  say  so.  We  shall  be 
told,  of  course,  that  the  new  internationalism  will  make  all  the 
difference  and  that  a  new  era  is  to  begin  after  the  war  which 
will  continue  even  when  the  miseries  of  the  present  time  begin 
to  be  forgotten.  They  are  happy  who  believe  it;  they  will  be 
foolish  who  trust  to  it. 

At  present  the  Allied  statesmen  have  no  definite  scheme  of 
a  League  of  Nations  in  their  mind.  They  hope  to  make  a  begin- 
ning on  much  the  same  lines  as  the  co-operation  of  the  nations 
in  the  Hague  Conventions.  The  members  will  doubtless  give 
pledges  to  one  another  that  in  case  of  dispute  they  will  not  draw 
the  sword  until  after  they  have  laid  their  case  before  some 
Court  of  Conciliation,  but  whether  they  will  pledge  themselves 
to  wage  war  on  any  wilful  aggressor  is  a  far  more  doubtful 
proposition.  We  may  expect,  also,  a  widespread  extension  of 
the  system  of  arbitration  treaties,  on  the  lines  of  the  one  already 
in  existence  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States.  But 
the  first  searching  test  question  will  be  disarmament,  and  the 
nations  will  not  disarm  until  they  feel  that  they  are  safe  and  can 
trust  the  new  international  machinery  that  is  set  up  for  their 
mutual  protection.  There  can  be  no  Security — to  use  Mr.  Pitt's 
famous  catchword — unless  German  militarism  is  completely  de- 
stroyed, together  with  the  whole  German  system  of  which  it  is 
the  spirit  and  the  life.  On  that  the  first  beginnings  of  a  per- 
manent League  of  Nations  depend,  and  even  when  so  much  has 
been  accomplished,  nationalism  will  still  find  itself  stronger  than 
internationalism.  Extravagant  hopes  a*re  being  aroused  which 
can  only  end  in  bitter  disappointment. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  1 

"When  the  League  of  Nations,"  said  Mr.  Arthur  Henderson, 
M.  P.,  on  January  22,  1918,  "with  its  necessary  machinery  be- 
comes an  indispensable  part  of  the  national  and  international 
life,  then,  and  then  only,  will  it  be  possible  for  a  world  democ- 
racy to  go  forward  to  the  full  realization  of  its  prosperity." 

1  Living  Age.    p.  113.    July  13,  1918. 


182  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

There  is  less  in  a  League  of  Nations  than  is  dreamed  of  in 
Mr.  Henderson's  philosophy,  or  even  in  that  of  President  Wilson, 
as  Sir  F.  E.  Smith  showed  in  his  address  to  the  New  York  Bar 
on  January  nth.  How  is  the  question  of  military  service  to  be 
settled,  since  if  one  Power  has  it  and  another  has  not,  the  weak 
will  always  be  at  the  mercy  of  the  strong?  Or  the  freedom  of 
the  sea,  when  land  powers  might  outvote  sea  powers?  What  of 
the  alteration  of  frontiers  and  nationalities  in  the  course  of 
history?  Or  the  problems  of  the  air,  when  "peaceful"  factories 
could  turn  out  in  secret  unlimited  quantities  of  war  material? 
And  if  elementary  questions  such  as  these  are  unanswerable, 
what  becomes  of  your  League  of  Nations? 

The  League  of  Nations  is  no  modern  idea :  it  was  tried 
nearly  2,500  years  ago  and  found  wanting.  Go  from  Naples  to 
Paestum,  a  Life  of  Piranesi  in  your  hand,  and  you  will  see  the 
most  wonderful  remains  of  Greek  architecture  extant  with  the 
exception  of  the  temples  at  Athens.  Among  them  are  the  re- 
mains of  a  Doric  Basilica  which  Paranesi  etched  and  called  the 
House  of  the  Amphictionic  Council.  That  Council  was  the 
League  of  Nations  of  the  democracies  of  the  Ancient  World,  and 
its  history  is  not  without  interest. 

But,  you  say,  those  lonians,  Dorians,  Phocians,  Thessalonians, 
Magnesians  and  the  rest  who  formed  the  League  were  not  na- 
tions, but  municipalities.  In  size,  perhaps ;  but  nations  they  were 
in  days  when  it  took  as  long  to  go  from  Athens  to  Messene  or 
from  Platea  to  Pella  as  it  takes  to  go  from  London  to  New 
York.  The  world  was  smaller  then,  and  analogies  must  be 
founded  on  position  and  not  on  population.  Everything  is  rela- 
tive. What  happened  when  this  Council  tried  to  enforce  its  own 
rules?  Look  at  its  history,  and  remember  that  in  the  days  of 
its  greatest  activity  Demosthenes  called  it  the  shadow  of  a 
shade.  Mr.  Henderson  will  please  note  that. 

The  Council  of  the  Amphictionic  League  was  made  up  of 
representatives  of  twelve  tribes,  each  with  two  votes.  It  met 
twice  a  year ;  at  Delphi  in  the  spring,  at  Anthela  near  Thermop- 
ylae in  the  autumn.  Its  duties  were  to  watch  over  the  inter- 
ests of  the  Temple  of  Delphi  and  the  Sacred  Land;  to  regulate 
the  relations  of  the  leagued  states  in  peace  and  war;  to  act  as 
arbitrator;  to  take  charge  of  roads  and  bridges;  to  arrange  loans 
from  the  Treasury— and  a  levy  on  capital  was'  not  an  unheard- 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  183 

of  measure  on  its  part;  to  supervise  the  Pythian  Games;  to 
erect  public  monuments,  one  to  Gorgias  the  orator,  for  instance, 
one  to  the  heroes  of  Thermopylae;  to  adjust  quarrels  between 
members  of  the  League,  as  in  the  case  of  the  complaint  of  the 
Plataeans  about  the  boastful  inscription  set  up  by  Sparta  on  the 
monument  at  Delphi  commemorating  the  battle  of  Plataea;  to 
punish  offenders  against  international  law,  as  in  the  judgment 
passed  on  Ephialtes  for  his  treachery  in  showing  the  Persians 
the  secret  path  over  the  hills  which  enabled  them  to  destroy 
Leonidas  and  his  Immortals.  It  possessed  the  right  of  sanctu- 
ary, of  which  Orestes  took  advantage;  it  exempted  religious 
bodies  from  military  service.  The  Amphictionic  oath  bound 
each  state  not  to  level  an  offending  city  to  the  earth  and  not  to 
cut  off  the  water  supply  from  a  belligerent ;  the  oath  thus  con- 
templated a  state  of  war  as  anything  but  abnormal.  And  how 
was  the  oath  carried  out?  Look  at  the  history  of  the  First 
Sacred  War:  the  very  name  is  an  irony.  The  city  of  Crisa 
levied  dues  on  the  pilgrims  who  passed  through  its  land  to  con- 
sult the  Delphic  Oracle,  the  Amphictionic  Council  declared  a 
Holy  War,  and,  after  a  favorable  response  from  Apollo  pro- 
ceeded to  divert  the  water  supply,  poison  it  with  hellebore,  and 
make  a  way  into  the  weakened  city,  which  was  thereupon  leveled 
with  the  ground:  the  Crisaean  plain  was  laid  waste  with  such 
"frightfulness"  that  it  was  still  a  scene  of  desolation  in  the  days 
of  Hadrian,  six  centuries  later. 

This  Association  of  democratic  neighboring  states,  with  their 
representatives  meeting  at  a  common  centre  to  transact  business 
of  the  League  and  to  celebrate  religious  rites,  with  its  record 
of  international  law,  its  binding  oaths,  its  claim  to  arbitrate,  so 
as  to  ameliorate  the  horrors  of  war,  its  nominal  equality  of  great 
and  small,  its  plea  for  self-determination  among  smaller  states, 
its  guarantees  against  the  abuse  of  power,  presents  an  extraor- 
dinary parallel  to  the  Hague  Conference  on  the  one  hand  and  to 
the  proposed  League  of  Nations  on  the  other.  The  result  was 
just  what  might  have  been  expected.  Powerful  democracies 
used  the  League  for  their  own  purposes,  observed  or  ignored 
their  obligations  to  suit  themselves;  there  was  no  redress.  Let 
those  who  hanker  for  a  League  of  Nations  recall  the  history  of 
the  democratic  Amphictionic  League;  see  it  becoming  the  in- 
strument of  one  powerful  party  after  another,  breaking  its  own 


184  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

laws,  its  own  oaths ;  see  Delphi  itself  taking  vengeance  on  Crisa, 
Thebes  on  Phocis,  Thespiae,  and  Plataea  •  Argos  on  Mycenae, 
and  see  what  comes  of  it  in  the  end.  As  the  First  Sacred  War 
had  disclosed  one  member-city  poisoning  the  waters  of  another, 
so  the  Second  Sacred  War  showed  the  same  cynical  Welt- 
politik,  followed  in  this  instance  by  the  tragedy  of  Chaeronea 
and  the  rise  of  Macedon.  In  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century 
B.  C,  Thebes,  having  been  successful  in  getting  the  Spartans 
fined  for  their  seizure  of  the  Cadmea,  saw  an  opportunity  of 
using  the  League  in  the  same  way  against  the  rival  state  of 
Phocis.  A  number  of  prominent  Phocians  were  fined  for  alleged 
sacrilege,  the  League  decreeing  that  if  the  fine  were  not  paid 
within  the  time  prescribed,  their  lands  should  be  confiscated  for 
the  benefit  of  Delphi.  Thereupon  the  Phocians  seized  Delphi 
itself;  the  League  met  at  Thermopylae  and  decided  that  an 
Amphictionic  army  should  rescue  the  sacred  city,  whose  treas- 
ures were  being  used  by  the  Phocians  to  purchase  new  allies  in 
the  North.  Thessaly,  threatened  by  this  move,  turned  for  help 
to  Philip  of  Macedon,  and  thus  changed  the  history  of  the 
world.  While  Demosthenes  urged  the  cause  of  liberty  and 
thundered  out  his  Phillipics,  warning  the  Athenians  of  the  in- 
tention of  Macedon  to  subjugate  all  Greece,  the  League  went  on 
as  usual.  The  board  of  temple  builders  met  at  Delphi;  the 
Amphictionic  Council — with  the  trifling  exception  of  the  anti- 
Phocian  states — assembled  as  before ;  Dorians  and  lonians  sat 
side  by  side  and  talked  and  talked  and  talked  in  the  peaceful 
Council  Chamber,  and  held  the  Pythian  Games ;  while  the  world 
outside  was  a  welter  of  blood  and  confusion  brought  on  it  by 
the  League. 

The  crazy  Declaration  of  London  was  the  fruit  of  the 
Hague  Conference;  the  rise  of  Macedon  the  fruit  of  the 
Amphictionic  League.  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them  is  as 
true  of  leagues  and  conferences  as  of  men  and  states.  Has  the 
experience  of  the  past  no  value  for  the  future?  Are  we  like  the 
Bourbons,  forever  learning  nothing,  but,  unlike  them,  forever 
forgetting?  If  so,  we  shall  form  and  rely  upon  a  League  of 
Nations  and  talk  and  talk  and  talk,  and  cry  out,  when  it  is  too 
late,  for  the  regretted  whips  of  independent  states  in  place  oi 
the  scorpions  of  "Allies"  in  a  League  of  Nations  who  work  in 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  185 

secret  and  reward  us  openly  with  the  penalties  of  a  stupidity 
born  of  sloppy  sentimentality,  the  offspring  of  self-deception. 

Fear  God  and  learn  to  take  your  own  part,  said  George  Bor- 
row of  the  ancient  city  of  Norwich.  Not  bad  advice !  If  fol- 
lowed it  will  be  more  likely  to  prevent  wrongdoing  than  will 
reliance  on  the  insincerities  of  a  League  of  Nations. 


THE  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE  * 

We  are  not  going  to  weary  our  readers  by  pointing  out 
again,  what  we  have  so  often  pointed  out  in  these  columns,  that 
the  Holy  Alliance,  though  started  with  the  most  genuine  and 
sincere  desire  to  form  a  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  ended  in  the 
erection  of  a  reactionary  tyranny,  and  that  it  took  all  the  efforts 
of  Castlereagh,  Wellington,  and  Canning,  together  with  en- 
lightened Whig  opinion  in  Britain,  to  prevent  it  from  bringing 
about  the  destruction  of  liberalism  throughout  the  world.  How 
this  happened  is  one  of  the  most  curious  examples  of  the  terrible 
nature  of  logic  when  working  unrestrained  in  human  affairs.  If 
you  have  Leagues  of  Powers  bound  by  a  great  common  object 
which  demands  large  sacrifices,  the  first  thing  that  the  con- 
stituent Powers  must  and  will  demand  is  a  mutual  guarantee  of 
each  other's  national  rights  and  interests.  Before  they  can  be 
sure  of  acting  unanimously  as  a  League  they  must  be  sure  of  not 
quarrelling  among  themselves.  But  they  cannot  be  sure  of  doing 
this  unless  they  are  sure  that  there  will  be  no  interference — no 
attempt  to  curtail  their  own  possessions  and  alter  their  own 
system  of  government.  Hence  any  kind  of  international  League 
is  always  bound  to  guarantee  the  status  quo.  But  the  status  quo 
may  in  some  particular  country  be  the  "negation  of  God  erected 
into  a  system."  This  first  stumbling-block  the  Holy  Alliance 
tried  to  some  extent  to  remove  by  means  of  periodic  Interna- 
tional Conferences  which  were  to  meet  every  three  years  and 
keep  the  various  states  of  the  world  in  good  order.  For  exam- 
ple, the  sixth  article  of  the  Holy  Alliance  bound  the  high  con- 
tracting Powers  to  hold  at  fixed  intervals  "meetings  consecrated 
to  great  common  objects  and  the  examination  of  such  measures 

1  Spectator,  October   14,    1916. 


i86  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

as  at  each  one  of  these  epochs  shall  be  judged  most  salutary  for 
the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  nations  and  for  the  maintenance 
of  the  peace  of  Europe."  The  first  of  these  meetings,  the  Con- 
ference held  at  Aix-la-Chapelle,  can  hardly  be  described  as 
a  success,  except  that  it  produced  a  perfectly  admirable  mem- 
orandum from  Castlereagh  in  which  he,  like  a  true  Briton,  tried 
to  find  a  sensible  via  media  between  the  two  extremes,  and, 
while  not  attempting  the  impossible,  to  do  something  practical 
for  the  cause  of  peace.  The  words  in  which  he  discusses  the 
Emperor  Alexander's  idea  of  a  universal  union  of  the  Powers 
are  so  good  that  we  cannot  resist  the  temptation  to  quote 
them : — 

"The  problem  of  a  Universal  Alliance  for  the  peace  and  happiness 
of  the  world,"  the  memorandum  runs,  "has  always  been  one  of  specu- 
lation and  hope,  but  it  has  never  yet  been  reduced  to  practice,  and  if  an 
opinion  may  be  hazarded  from  its  difficulty,  it  never  can  be.  But  you  may 
in  practice  approach  towards  it,  and  perhaps  the  design  has  never  been 
so  far  realized  as  in  the  last  four  years.  During  that  eventful  period  the 
Quadruple  Alliance,  formed  upon  principles  altogether  limited,  has  had, 
from  the  presence  of  the  sovereigns  and  the  unparalleled  unity  of  design 
with  which  the  Cabinets  have  acted,  the  power  of  travelling  so  far  out  of 
the  sphere  of  their  immediate  and  primitive  obligations,  without  at  the  same 
time  transgressing  any  of  the  laws  of  nations  or  failing  in  the  delicacy 
which  they  owe  to  the  rights  of  other  states,  as  to  form  more  extended 
alliances  ...  to  interpose  their  good  offices  for  the  settlement  of  difficulties 
between  other  states,  to  take  the  initiative  in  watching  over  the  peace  of 
Europe,  and  finally  in  securing  the  execution  of  its  treaties.  The  idea  of 
an  Alliance  Solidaire,  by  which  each  state  shall  be  bound  to  support  the 
state  of  succession,  government  and  possession  within  all  other  states  from 
violence  and  attack,  upon  condition  of  receiving  for  itself  a  similar  guar- 
antee, must  be  understood  as  morally  implying  the  previous  establishment 
of  such  a  system  of  general  government  as  may  secure  and  enforce  upon 
all  kings  and  nations  an  internal  system  of  peace  and  justice.  Till  the 
mode  of  constructing  such  a  system  shall  be  devised,  the  consequence  is  in- 
admissible, as  nothing  would  be  more  immoral  or  more  prejudicial  to  the 
character  of  government  generally,  than  the  idea  that  their  force  was  col- 
lectively to  be  prostituted  to  the  support  of  established  power,  without  any 
consideration  of  the  text  to  which  it  was  abused.  Till  a  sytsem  of  ad- 
ministering Europe  by  a  general  alliance  of  all  its  states  can  be  reduced 
to  some  practical  form,  all  notions  of  a  general  and  unqualified  guarantee 
must  be  abandoned,  and  the  states  must  be  left  to  rely  for  their  security 
tfpon  the  justice  and  wisdom  of  their  respective  systems,  and  the  aid  of 
other  states  according  to  the  law  of  nations." 

Before  we  leave  the  subject  of  the  Conference  at  Aix-la- 
Chapelle  we  must  not  forget  to  mention  the  curious,  but  no 
doubt  inevitable,  result  of  the  attempt  to  mitigate  the  hard  logic 
of  the  guaranteed  status  quo.  The  Conference  was,  in  effect, 
asked  to  act,  and  attempted  to  act,  as  a  kind  of  European  Su- 
preme Court  which  heard  appeals  and  received  petitions  of  all 
kinds  from  Sovereigns  and  subjects  alike.  For  example,  the 
Elector  of  Hesse  asked  to  be  allowed  to  exchange  his  meaning- 
less title  for  that  of  "King,"  a  request  which,  Mr.  Alison  Phil- 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  187 

lips  tells  us,  was  refused  because  it  was  not  considered  expedient 
to  make  the  Royal  style  too  common!  The  people  of  Monaco, 
again,  presented  a  list  of  grievances  against  their  Prince,  while 
Bavaria  and  the  Hochberg  line  of  Princes  referred  to  the  Con- 
ference their  quarrel  about  the  succession  in  Baden.  Finally, 
the  situation  of  the  Jews  in  Austria  and  Prussia  was  brought 
under  discussion.  But  though  these  minor  issues  were  either 
settled  or  got  rid  of,  it  will  be  found  that  jealousy  of  British  sea 
power  at  once  awoke,  and  threw  obstacles  in  the  way  of  even 
so  great  a  benefit  to  humanity  as  the  suppression  of  the  slave 
trade.  Though  the  Powers  had  agreed  in  principle  to  our 
carrying  out  this  immense  reform,  they  were  not  willing  to 
accept  that  mutual  right  of  search  by  which  we  sought  to  sup- 
press it.  Again,  when  it  came  to  an  attempt  to  mediate  between 
Spain  and  her  revolting  colonies,  the  Powers  could  not  agree. 
It  is  true  that  they  succeeded  in  calling  the  King  of  Sweden  to 
order;  but,  while  obeying,  he  protested  against  the  dictatorship 
arrogated  to  themselves  by  the  Great  Powers,  a  course  in  which 
he  was  backed  up  by  the  indignant  King  of  Wiirttemberg.  No 
wonder  that,  when  the  Conference  broke  up  with  a  considerably 
damaged  reputation,  Canning  made  the  cynical  but  common- 
sense  comment  that  "things  are  getting  back  to  a  wholesome 
state  again.  Every  nation  for  itself  and  God  for  us  all!  Only 
bid  your  Emperor  be  quiet,  for  the  time  for  Areopagus  and  the 
like  of  that  is  gone  by."  That,  we  fear,  must  be  our  comment 
on  all  schemes  like  that  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace. 

But  is  there  no  hope  for  peace?  Yes,  there  is.  If,  as  the 
result  of  this  war,  the  world  learns  that  it  does  not  pay  to  act 
the  part  of  Frederick  the  Great,  and  that  in  the  end  severe  pun- 
ishment falls  on  the  promoters  of  such  an  evil  policy,  and  if, 
further,  the  system  of  military  autocracy  can  be  made  to  give 
way  to  that  of  government  of  the  people  for  the  people  by  the 
people,  we  see  no  reason  to  doubt  that  peace  may  be  maintained 
for  another  generation.  More  than  that  it  is  not  safe  to  proph- 
esy. But  let  us  remember  always  that  even  if  universal  peace 
could  be  bought,  the  price  we  should  have  to  pay  for  it  would 
be  too  high.  The  price  is  international  slavery. 


i88  SELECTED  ARTICLES 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS1 

want  to  call  attention  to  this,  that  once  we  have 
entered  into  a  league  of  nations  I  assume  that  the  Senator 
from  Montana  will  admit  that  this  league,  its  representative 
government,  of  whatever  kind  it  may  be,  which  has  not  yet 
been  denned,  will  have  power  to  curb  any  one  of  its  con- 
stituent members  from  beginning  a  war  against  another  mem- 
ber. Otherwise  there  will  be  no  object  whatever  in  forming 
it,  as  it  would  be  no  advance  at  all  over  the  Hague  conven- 
tion which  already  exists,  the  worthlessness  of  which  in  the 
face  of  the  perversities  of  human  nature,  as  exemplified  by 
the  German  nation,  has  shown  to  all  the  world. 

Once  we  form  this  league,  that  league  having  the  power, 
the  league,  and  not  any  member  of  it,  will  determine  what  its 
powers  shall  be,  whether  they  shall  be  curtailed  or  whether 
they  shall  be  extended.  That,  in  general,  has  been  the  ten- 
dency of  the  Federal  Union  in  its  relations  with  the  states. 
The  inventions  of  science,  however,  and  the  spread  of  intel- 
ligence have  made  our  happy  domain  as  one  community.  Its 
independence,  its  sovereignty,  is  the  chief  jewel  in  its  crown. 
It  cannot  be  surrendered  without  a  struggle. 

Only  a  few  days  ago  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  the  dis- 
tinguished chairman  of  the  Foreign  Relations  committee 
said  that  in  the  question  of  international  trade,  as  to  whether 
or  not  there  should  be  any  discrimination  between  the  United 
States  and  any  other  nation,  that  question  would  be  deter- 
mined by  the  league.  Now,  there  is  the  whole  proposition 
admitted  away,  for  if  this  plan  is  adopted  the  power  of  deter- 
mination has  gone  from  the  United  States.  It  is  in  the  hands 
of  an  alien  power;  it  is  in  the  hands  of  rival  powers;  it  is  in 
the  hands  of  Europe.  The  United  States  will  have  sur- 
rendered its  birthright;  it  will  have  given  up  the  spirit  as  well 
as  the  fact  of  sovereignty.  Your  Monroe  doctrine  will  be 
absorbed  in  your  league  of  nations.  It  will  become  obsolete, 
as  some  of  the  internationalists  have  already  been  preaching, 
circulating  pamphlets  with  the  phrase,  "The  Monroe  doctrine 

1  By  Senator  Miles  Poindexter,  of  Washington.  Congressional  Record, 
p.  12662.  November  15,  1918. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  189 

an  obsolete  shibboleth."  That  will  become  a  realization  if 
this  league  of  nations  that  is  proposed  by  the  Senator  from 
Montana,  as  near  as  I  can  gather  his  idea,  is  carried  out. 

Now,  let  us  see.  In  the  first  place,  I  think  the  Senator  is 
too  optimistic,  and  I  might  say  idealistic,  to  assume  that  as 
a  result  of  this  war  the  same  passions  and  ambitions  that 
have  actuated  the  governments  of  nations  in  the  past  are  not 
going  to  be  in  full  play  in  the  evolution  of  the  future.  Your 
league  of  nations  is  established.  We  all  know  that  most  of 
the  European  nations  have  never  accepted,  perhaps  none  of 
them  in  express  terms,  the  validity  of  the  position  taken  by 
the  United  States  in  setting  up  the  so-called  Monroe  doc- 
trine. They  have  not  admitted  its  validity.  The  populations  of 
these  powers  are-  going  to  increase,  the  struggle  for  existence, 
for  bread,  is  going  to  continue  in  the  future  as  it  has  in  the 
past.  The  necessity  for  expansion  and  for  colonization  are 
not  matters  that  are  determined  by  the  form  of  government 
or  by  the  terms  of  peace.  They  are  governed  by  fundamental 
influences,  the  primal  instincts  of  man,  and  they  are  going  to 
be  in  as  full  play  after  the  terms  of  peace  between  Germany 
and  the  allies  have  been  settled  as  they  were  at  the  time  the 
Monroe  doctrine  was  set  up  by  the  American  statesman  of  a 
previous  generation.  Trade  is  going  to  be  carried  on.  Rivalry 
and  controversy  about  trade,  about  property  rights,  about 
personal  rights,  are  going  to  arise.  Does  the  Senator  from 
Oklahoma  suppose  that  Europeans  are  not  going  to  seek 
business,  to  acquire  property,  to  have  rights  in  Mexico,  in 
Brazil,  in  the  Argentine  Republic  in  the  future  as  they  have 
in  the  past?  If  he  does,  then  it  seems  to  me  he  leaves  out 
of  account  the  necessary  continuity  of  the  ambitions  and 
activities  of  mankind.  They  are  going  to  continue  these 
activities. 

Now,  let  us  suppose  that  some  question  of  that  kind 
arises.  The  league  of  nations  is  in  control.  We  set  up  the 
Monroe  doctrine  in  opposition  to  some  proposition  of  a 
European  member  of  this  league,  of  a  protectorate  or  direct 
government  control  in  order  to  protect  the  property,  or  the 
trade,  or  the  person  of  its  nationals  in  Central  or  South 
America  or  in  Mexico.  What  is  the  result?  It  inevitably 
goes  before  the  league.  The  constituted  authority  of  the 


IQO  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

league  will  pass  on  it,  not  the  United  States.  They  will  de- 
termine it.  Do  you  suppose  that  they  are  going  to  accept 
for  their  guidance  the  Monroe  doctrine,  which  has  never  been 
admittedly  them  and  which  the  United  States  alone,  for  its 
protection  and  for  the  preservation  of  a  democratic  form  of 
government,  has  set  up  and  maintained  by  physical  power? 
Of  course  not.  They  are  going  to  determine  it  according  to 
their  own  ideas.  The  sovereignty  of  the  United  States  in 
maintaining  its  doctrine,  its  principles,  its  tradition,  its  Con- 
stitution will  be  gone. 

In  the  second  place,  Mr.  President,  a  league  of  nations  as 
proposed  by  the  Senator  from  Oklahoma  and  the  Senator 
from  Montana  and  the  Senator  from  Mississippi  (Mr.  Wil- 
liams) who  is  not  here,  but  whom  I  have  heard  express  him- 
self on  this  floor  on  that  subject,  would  necessitate,  if  we 
are  going  to  be  governed  by  law,  a  revision  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States.  I  know  it  has  become  quite  un- 
popular nowadays  to  refer  a  question  to  the  Constitution. 
But  this  league  of  nations  which  is  proposed  assumes,  if  it 
assumes  anything  at  all,  that  the  ultimate  control  in  regard 
to  war  or  peace  rests  in  the  league.  Under  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  it  rests  in  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  and  if  you  take  it  away  from  that  Government  and 
submit  it  to  a  league,  then  you  set  aside  your  Constitution 
in  effect,  whether  you  do  it  expressly  or  not. 

The  idea  that  is  always  assumed,  that  such  a  league  as  is 
now  proposed  is  in  the  interest  of  peace,  is  in  the  face  of  all 
history.  We  did  not  even  prevent  war  in  the  United  States 
by  forming  a  Federal  Union.  The  most  gigantic  war  that 
the  world  had  ever  seen  up  to  that  time  occurred  between  the 
constituent  members  of  the  league,  or  the  Union,  as  it  was 
called  in  that  case.  The  Senator,  as  I  said  before,  can  not 
stop  the  rivalries  and  ambitions  of  men  by  joining  them  in 
a  Federal  league.  They  are  going  to  continue  whether  you 
have  a  Federal  league  or  not.  The  undertaking  to  interfere 
with  the  sovereign  right  of  the  United  States  to  determine  its 
policy;  to  set  up  a  Monroe  doctrine,  if  it  sees  fit;  to  levy  a 
tariff  against  other  nations;  to  make  such  shipping  regula- 
tions as  it  proposed;  and  to  give  preferences  to  its  own  ships 
in  passing  through  the  Panama  Canal,  if  it  wants  to,  as 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  191 

against  the  ships  of  other  nations,  will  lead  to  trouble  and  to 
warfare  instead  of  to  that  dream  of  peace  which  the  Senator 
from  Oklahoma  has  in  mind.  As  a  member  of  the  league, 
instead  of  following  the  advice  of  Washington  and  keeping 
aloof  as  far  as  possible  from  the  embroilments  of  other  na- 
tions, we  would  be  inextricably  involved  in  the  increasing 
complications  of  race  and  a  party  to  every  quarrel  which 
growing  populations  and  the  struggle  for  land  and  trade  will 
inevitably  force  upon  the  world. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  x 

At  a  time  like~  this,  when  a  peace  is  about  to  be  declared,  a 
peace  that  is  the  most  glorious  of  all  history,  a  peace  that  was 
made  possible  by  the  valor  and  power  of  this  country,  it  is  pro- 
posed that  we  shall  abandon  our  ancient  and  traditional  peace 
and  shall  become  entangled  in  every  broil  of  Europe  as  these 
broils  may  now  or  as  they  may  hereafter  exist.  It  is  the  most 
monstrous  doctrine  ever  proposed  in  this  Republic.  The  sanctity 
of  no  great  name  can  render  it  holy.  The  opinion  of  no  man 
can  make  it  safe. 

Let  me  instance  one  thing :  It  is  well  known  that  prior  to  the 
war  England,  France,  and  Germany  were  busily  engaged  in  ex- 
tending their  foreign  territory  for  the  purpose  of  extending 
their  foreign  trade.  In  a  few  years'  time  they  absorbed  prac- 
tically all  of  the  continent  of  Africa.  It  is  also  known  that  they 
looked  with  ambitious  and  greedy  eyes  toward  South  America; 
at  least,  Germany  did,  and  we  have  some  reasons  to  suspect  that 
England  not  many  years  ago  had  like  ambitions.  Who  will  fail 
to  remember  that  Grover  Cleveland  was  obliged  to  almost 
threaten  England  with  war  in  the  matter  of  Venezuela?  As- 
sume, now,  that  we  shall  employ  this  mighty  fleet  which  we  are 
constructing  to  absorb  the  trade  of  South  America— as  we 
should — and  that  we  shall  begin  to  gain  the  business  of  that 
continent;  assume  that  under  some  controversy  which  may  arise 
there — a  just  controversy  to  begin  with  or  a  controversy  created 
for  the  purpose— Germany,  having  been  rehabilitated,  were  to 

*By  Senator  James  A.  Reed,  of  Missouri.  Congressional  Record, 
p.  12720.  November  21,  1918. 


I92  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

undertake  to  establish  herself  in  some  South  American  country 
and  were  to  propose  to  open  that  country  to  the  trade  of  Euro- 
pean countries  on  advantageous  terms,  what  would  be  our  chance 
before  a -court  the  majority  of  whose  members  represented  the 
countries  interested  in  getting  that  trade?  You  say  my  illustra- 
tion is  impossible :  I  say  that  in  10  years  from  now  we  may  find 
our  closest  friend  to-day  the  ally  of  a  German  state. 

The  history  of  the  world  shows  this.  The  animosities  of 
nations  do  not  long  endure  when  they  have  interests  in  common. 
A  few  years  ago  Prussia  conquered  Austria;  they  soon  became 
allies.  Many  years  Russia  protected  Bulgaria  against  the  Turk, 
but  this  did  not  prevent  Bulgaria  from  becoming  the  ally  of 
Turkey  against  Russia.  History  teems  with  similar  instances. 
In  such  a  controversy  as  I  have  suggested,  would  it  not  be  to 
the  interest  of  every  European  country  to  destroy  the  dominance 
of  America  in  the  South  American  trade?  Would  it  not  be  to 
the  interest  of  Norway  and  of  Sweden  and  of  Holland  and  of 
Germany  and  of  England  and  of  France  and  of  Spain  and  of 
Portugal,  of  all  of  them,  to  turn  that  trade  which  the  United 
States  had  absorbed  over  to  themselves?  I  might  multiply  il- 
lustrations. It  is  sufficient  to  suggest  one.  In  a  controversy  of 
that  kind,  would  we  be  safe?  Dare  any  man  propose  to  submit 
the  Monroe  doctrine  to  a  tribunal  of  European  kings  or  to  a 
tribunal  of  European  nation?  I  say,  if  such  a  man  there  is,  he 
has  forgotten  the  history  of  the  Republic,  the  genius  of  our 
people,  the  soul  of  our  institutions. 

But,  passing  from  that,  I  come  to  the  question,  What  is  to 
be  the  purpose  of  this  league  of  nations?  We  are  told  that  one 
of  its  objects  is  to  guarantee  the  territorial  integrity  of  nations. 
This  in  plain  language  means  that  we  shall  agree  to  prevent  any 
one  nation  from  invading  the  territory  of  another  nation.  Why, 
Mr.  President,  if  we  were  to  make  that  sort  of  compact,  it  would 
result  that  a  nation  could  decline  to  carry  out  its  agreements  and 
bid  defiance  to  any  other  nation,  simply  saying,  "You  have  no 
power  to  invade  us;  you  are  held  back  by  the  international 
agreement,  and  if  you  invade  us  you  will  be  crushed  by  the 
international  army.  Would  a  nation  be  permitted  to  thus  refuse 
to  fulfill  its  obligations  or  would  the  controversy  be  referred  to 
a  court?  If  so  referred,  we  are  at  once  confronted  with  all  the 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  193 

difficulties  incident  to  a  prejudiced  or  interested  court,  a  topic 
already  discussed. 

Is  the  league  to  guarantee  the  stability  of  the  governments  of 
the  different  countries  that  are  permitted  to  become  members? 
If  so,  no  monarchial  or  tyrannical  government  can  ever  be  over- 
thrown, because  its  power  will  be  sustained  by  the  league  of 
nations.  No  oppressed  people  can  rebel,  because  they  must  fight 
not  only  the  unjust  government  of  their  own  state,  but  they  must 
contend  against  the  governments  of  all  of  the  other  countries  of 
the  league. 

By  what  code  of  ethics  and  morals  are  we  to  settle  the  ques- 
tions that  arise  from  time  to  time  among  the  members  of  this 
league  of  nations?  Are  they  to  have  a  tribunal  that  is  to  decide 
these  questions;  and  if  not,  how  are  the  questions  to  be  decided? 
If  they  have  a  tribunal,  it  will  be  composed  of  the  partisans  of 
each  nation,  and,  as  I  have  already  shown,  under  existing  con- 
ditions its  membership  will  be  largely  made  up  of  kings  or  the 
representatives  of  kings  or  revolutionists  and  bolsheviki  or  the 
representatives  of  revolutionists  and  bolsheviki.  But  by  what 
code  of  morals  or  of  ethics  are  we  to  decide  the  questions  that 
arise  ? 

The  nations  have  different  religions,  different  forms  of 
government,  different  civilizations,  and  the  roots  of  these  differ- 
ences in  many  instances  go  back  more  than  2,000  years.  Are  we 
to  undertake  now  to  create  a  league  of  nations  and  set  up  an 
international  moral  code  for  the  other  nations  of  the  world? 
If  so,  by  what  principle  are  we  to  govern  ourselves?  China 
would  be  invited  into  this  league  of  nations.  She  would  have 
to  be.  She  is  a  great  country.  She  is  the  first  country  in  the 
history  of  the  world  that  ever  adopted  the  doctrine  of  pacifism. 
Japan  must  come  in;  and  yet  we  say  that  Japan  is  pagan,  and 
we  say  that  China  is  pagan.  Shall  the  "unspeakable  Turk"  come 
in ;  and  if  so,  shall  he  bring  his  religion  and  serapho  ?  How  are 
we  to  agree  upon  a  code  that  will  accord  with  the  tenets  of  the 
Greek  Catholic,  the  Roman  Catholic,  the  various  branches  of  the 
Protestant  Church,  the  Jewish,  the  Mohammedan,  and  the  Con- 
fucian religion,  or  the  Shintoism  and  Buddhism  of  Japan?  By 
what  code  of  morals  are  we  to  regulate  and  set  up  our  stand- 
ards? 

Mr.  President,  what  is  to  be  the  policy  of  this  league  of  na- 


194  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

tions  ?  Is  England  to  disband  her  mighty  fleet,  which  we  are  just 
now  being  told  has  saved  the  world  and  civilization?  Is  there 
anybody  on  this  earth  great  enough  fool — I  intentionally  use  that 
harsh  term — to  believe  that  England  is  going  into  any  league  of 
nations  upon  terms  that  will  compel  her  to  disband  her  fleet? 
Why,  if  England  were  to  disband  her  fleet  and  if  she  then  were 
attacked  by  any  first-class  power  she  could  be  starved  into 
subjection  within  90  days.  Does  anyone  for  a  moment  believe 
that  England  will  yield  her  fleet?  If,  however,  England  does 
not  yield  her  fleet  and  all  other  nations  agree  to  build  no  more 
ships  and  to  be  bound  by  this  league  of  nations,  England  will  be 
the  master  nation  of  the  league  and  so  also  of  the  world.  All 
other  nations  will  be  subject  to  her  power  should  she  see  fit  to 
exercise  it.  If  it  be  argued  that  other  nations  might  continue 
to  arm  and  build  ships,  notwithstanding  the  league,  such  an 
argument  negatives  the  chief  purpose  of  the  league  and  renders 
it  a  useless  thing. 

Mr.  President,  you  can  not  imagine  this  league  of  nations 
and  attempt  to  put  it  into  practical  application  without  you  will 
be  startled  at  once  by  the  impossibility  of  the  task  you  have  as- 
sumed. If  I  had  before  me  a  map  of  Europe,  I  could  point  out 
to  you  the  battle  fields  of  this  war;  I  could  point  to  you  where 
the  ancient  Hun,  the  ancient  Goth,  the  ancient  Vandal  and  the 
ancient  Gaul  fought  on  these  same  battle  fields  2,000  years  ago. 
The  struggle  that  has  been  going  on  in  Europe  has,  of  course, 
had  its  recent  irritating  causes,  but  its  ancient  causes  can  be 
traced  back  to  times  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  when  Teuton 
met  Gaul,  and  upon  the  ground  now  wet  with  new-drawn  blood 
of  their  descendants.  For  20  centuries  the  races  of  Europe  have 
fought  for  supremacy. 

The  animosities  and  hatreds  that  have  been  engendered  dur- 
ing all  the  bloody  years  are  to-day  as  bitter  as  they  were  hun- 
dreds of  years  ago.  Let  me  cite  you  one  comparatively  recent 
illustration:  Centuries  ago  Bohemia  was  overcome  by  Austria. 
At  that  time  Bohemia  had  the  greatest  university  in  Europe ; 
over  6,000  students  gathered  at  Prague  from  all  parts  of  the 
known  world.  The  court  of  Bohemia  was  one  of  the  most  bril- 
liant in  existence.  In  one  battle  Bohemia  lost  her  liberty,  and 
from  that  time  to  this  the  Austrian  oppressor  has  been  engaged 
in  endeavoring  to  exterminate  the  Bohemian  people,  not  physi- 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  195 

cally,  but  to  exterminate  their  love  of  country,  their  recollection 
of  the  glory  of  the  past,  their  national  spirit.  Austria  has  un- 
dertaken to  deprive  them  of  their  very  language ;  she  has  im- 
prisoned them;  she  has  hanged  them  upon  scaffolds;  she  has 
caused  them  to  be  shot  by  squads  of  soldiers.  Yet  the  Bohemian 
continued  to  hate  his  oppressor  and  to  love  his  country  so  pas- 
sionately that  in  the  present  war  Bohemian  regiment  after  Bo- 
hemian regiment  have  refused  to  obey  the  orders  of  their  op- 
pressors and  at  the  very  first  opportunity  they  raised  the  flag  of 
revolt.  To-day  they  are  seeking  to  rear  again  the  structure  of 
their  ancient  State. 

Mr.  President,  that  same  kind  of  race  hatred  and  love  of 
country  exists  to-day  in  Hungary,  where  the  Magyar  has  placed 
his  powerful  hand  upon  a  conquered  race.  So  through  all  these 
European  countries — and  I  do  not  pause  to  go  into  any  analysis 
of  their  history — we  will  find  these  rival  races,  these  rival  bloods, 
these  hatreds  that  are  2,000  years  old,  these  animosities  that  will 
spring  into  flame  so  long  as  there  are  men  and  women  on  this 
earth. 

Likewise  there  exists  the  ambitions  of  kings,  the  ambitions  of 
peoples,  the  desire  of  the  Teuton  to  get  to  the  sea  and  to  live  in 
a  bigger  way,  the  desire  of  other  nations  to  hold  him  back,  the 
determination  of  the  Turk  to  control  the  Bosphorus,  the  fixed 
purpose  of  European  nations  to  acquire  it,  the  desire  of  France 
to  extend  her  borders  toward  Germany,  the  desire  of  Germany 
to  absorb  France,  the  desire  of  Greece  to  reclaim  her  ancient 
glories,  the  desire  of  Italy  to  push  her  borders  into  Austrian 
territory,  the  desire  of  England  that  her  drumbeat  shall  not 
only  follow  the  sun  in  its  course,  but  that  it  shall  be  heard  be- 
neath every  star  that  shines  between  the  North  Pole  and  the 
Southern  Cross — these  ambitions  and  these  desires  are  part  of 
the  life,  the  soul,  the  blood,  the  history  of  these  peoples. 

These  controversies  will  spring  into  action  every  10  years  of 
the  world's  history.  There  will  be  wars  in  Europe,  wars  that 
have  an  European  origin,  wars  that  have  an  European  basis, 
wars  that  have  back  of  them  European  ambitions  and  hatreds. 
Into  all  of  those  wars,  into  all  of  those  turmoils,  into  all  of  that 
maelstrom  of  hatred  and  ambition,  it  is  proposed  to  thrust  the 
United  States  for  all  time.  It  is  proposed  that  every  time  there 
is  a  quarrel  in  Europe  the  United  States  must  draw  her  sword; 


i96  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

it  is  proposed  that  every  time  there  is  a  cloud  of  war  anywhere 
upon  the  horizon  of  Europe  we  shall  summon  our  soldiers.  Our 
boys  must  be  dragged  from  the  factories  and  offices  and  farms, 
that  we  shall  make  the  draft  a  permanent  institution.  That  we 
shall  tear  these  youths  from  their  homes  and  families  and  send 
them  across  the  sea ;  that  we  shall  pour  out  their  blood  in  quar- 
rels between  nations  that  are  3,000  miles  from  our  shores,  and 
in  controversies  that  affect  us  not  the  slightest  jot  or  tittle. 

Mr.  President,  we  have  had  one  of  these  wars.  I  do  not 
complain  because  we  entered  it.  We  entered  it  because  Germany 
violated  her  rights  on  the  high  seas;  but  shall  that  be  a  reason 
for  changing  our  policy?  For  nearly  a  century  and  a  half  we 
have  adhered  to  the  policy  of  Washington.  We  have  pursued 
the  march  of,  empire,  of  glory,  and  of  peace.  It  may  also  be 
said  that  in  all  that  long  time  we  have  had  no  European  war. 
The  war  of  1812  was  really  the  aftermath  of  the  war  of  1776, 
growing  out  of  that  and  out  of  our  weakened  condition.  I  do 
not  count  it.  It  is  impossible  that  such  a  war  should  occur 
again.  The  War  with  Spain —  the  little  go-day  War  with  Spain 
— occurred,  I  honestly  believe,  through  a  mistake  rather  than 
through  a  crime  -%  but  let  us  call  it  a  war.  They  did  not  count  as 
much  sir,  as  the  death  roll  of  a  five-minute  battle  in  this  war. 
They  did  not  count  as  much  in  money  as  we  are  spending  in  two 
days'  time.  In  the  long  flight  of  years  we  have  stood  in  our 
place  of  isolation ;  we  have  stood  proudly  by  ourselves,  inde- 
pendent, powerful,  great,  peaceful,  and  prosperous. 

Because  Germany  finally  violated  our  rights  on  the  seas  and 
we  were  obliged  to  enter  a  controversy  against  her,  is  that  any 
reason  why  we  should  by  solemn  bargain  agree  to  become  a 
party  to  every  European  quarrel  that  may  hereafter  occur?  Is 
that  any  reason  why  our  boy  should  be  taken  from*  his  home, 
why  the  draft  should  be  imposed,  why  we  should  plunge  our- 
selves into  endless  debt? 

This  war,  brought  on,  as  I  have  stated  by  the  reason  of  the 
violation  of  our  rights,  will  have  cost  us,  I  believe,  before  we 
are  through,  more  than  $50,000,000,000.  It  has  cost  us  a  toll  in 
life  I  do  not  know  how  great,  because  the  returns  are  not  here 
yet. 

Many  of  these  sorrows  are  still  to  come  to  our  people ;  yet,  in 
the  face  of  that,  we  have  the  monstrous  doctrine  proposed  that 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  197 

America  shall  bind  herself  into  a  league  of  nations  that  will 
compel  her  to  become  a  part  and  parcel  of  every  European 
quarrel;  and  this  is  to  be  the  case  whether  the  quarrel  is  occa- 
sioned by  the  ambitions  of  kings  or  by  the  outbreaks  of  an- 
archists and  socialists  and  Bolsheviki,  who  seek  to  overturn 
existing  governments  whether  republics  or  monarchies. 

I  protest — I  protest  in  the  name  of  the  mothers  of  the  Re- 
public. I  protest  in  the  name  of  the  boys  of  the  land— that  it  is 
not  only  our  high  duty  to  keep  free  from  European  quarrels  in 
the  future,  but  it  is  our  duty  just  as  soon  as  this  war  can  be 
honorably  ended  to  call  back  to  this  country,  as  fast  as  ships  will 
bring  them,  the  last  one  of  our  American  soldiers.  That  it  is 
duty  to  restore  them  to  their  homes;  to  give  them  back  to  the 
creative  arts  and  industries;  to  give  them  the  chance  to  build 
homes  and  to  rear  families.  It  is  our  duty  to  open  to  them  the 
doors  of  schools  and  universities.  It  is  our  duty  to  invite  them 
to  enjoy  the  glories  of  that  peace  they  have  so  nobly  fought  to 
attain.  It  is  our  duty  to  give  notice  now  and  here  that  the  Re- 
public will  continue  to  adhere  to  her  ancient  policy  of  isolation 
and  independence. 

Why  is  there  not  a  great  enough  field  for  the  American 
statesman?  Is  any  man  so  ambitious  that  he  can  not  find  in  the 
thing  I  am  about  to  present  a  sufficiently  alluring  picture? 

To  our  south  lie  the  great  nations  of  South  America.  They 
are  only  half  developed.  They  have  a  people  that  are  naturally 
our  allies  and  our  friends.  Their  commerce  ought  to  be  our 
commerce;  our  commerce  ought  to  be  their  commerce.  Our 
friendship  ought  to  be  their  friendship;  their  friendship  ought 
to  be  our  friendship.  We  are  bound  together  by  ties  of  interest 
and  amity.  Surely  here  one  can  visualize  a  field  of  national  in- 
fluence glorious  and  splendid,  not  only  for  us  but  for  them.  The 
contemplation  of  such  a  picture  ought  to  gratify  all  ambitions, 
all  yearnings  for  power  and  greatness. 

Mr.  President,  the  life  of  this  Republic  may  hang  upon  this 
decision.  We  can  not  engage  in  these  foreign  alliances  without 
making  mutual  bargains.  We  can  not  call  upon  them  to  protect 
us  unless  we  agree  to  protect  them.  We  cannot  expect  them  to 
come  to  our  relief  in  a  controversy  unless  we  go  to  the  relief  of 
each  of  them  in  their  controversies.  The  man  who  proposes  to 
thrust  America  into  the  broils  and  wars  of  Europe,  binding  her 


I98  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

for  all  time  to  the  intrigues  and  conspiracies  and  ambitions  of 
the  courts  of  kings  and  czars  and  such  governments  as  may  ex- 
ist, who  proposes  to  reverse  the  policy  of  Washington,  the  opin- 
ions of  Jefferson,  the  doctrines  of  the  fathers,  advocates  that 
which  may  unmake  this  great  Republic. 


THE  CORNERSTONE  OF  PEACE  J 

The  American  Economist  submits  that,  notwithstanding  the 
lofty  aims  of  Mr.  Wilson,  the  variety  of  interpretations  placed 
upon  the  proposal  for  a  League  of  Nations,  and  the  manifest 
confusion  of  thought  in  the  proposal  itself,  affords  abundant 
ground  for  serious  reflection. 

It  is  said  that  the  league  and  the  clear  definitions  of  its  ob- 
jects "  is  in  a  sense  the  most  essential  part  of  the  peace  settle- 
ment itself";  and  at  the  same  time  that  "it  cannot  be  formed 
now." 

It  is  said  that  the  league  must  not  remain  in  abeyance  until 
the  work  of  reconstruction  begins,  for  it  must  form  the  most 
essential  part  of  the  peace  settlement  itself. 

It  is  said  that  the  proposed  league  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
economic  system  "which,"  as  the  London  Times  says,  "each 
future  member  of  the  league  may  have  devised  to  suit  itself"; 
whereas  Mr.  Wilson  said : 

Fourth,  and  more  specifically,  there  can  be  no  special,  selfish  economic 
combinations  within  the  league  and  no  employment  of  any  form  of  economic 
boycott  or  exclusion  except  as  the  power  of  economic  penalty  by  exclusion 
from  the  markets  of  the  world  may  be  vested  in  the  League  of  Nations 
itself  as  a  means  of  discipline  and  control. 

It  is  said  that  the  League  of  Nations  at  first  must  exclude 
Germany;  and  yet  according  to  Mr.  Wilson  the  league  must  be 
the  most  essential  part  of  the  peace  settlement  itself,  and  Ger- 
many, of  course,  is  to  participate  in  the  peace  settlement. 

It  is  said  that  the  league  must  forever  exclude  economic 
weapons  except  as  a  means  of  discipline  and  control ;  and  yet  the 
English  papers  declare  that  England  must  not  surrender  her  eco- 
nomic weapons.  For  example,  the  London  Times  says: 

It  is  true  enough  that  our  own  Free  Trade  system  was  probably  in- 
itiated in  the  first  instance  in  the  sanguine  hope  that  the  whole  world  would 

1  American  Economist,     p.  222.     October   18,   1918. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  199 

follow  the  example.  It  found  us,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  at  the  very  crisis  of 
our  fortunes,  without  a  single  imitator  among  the  great  nations  of  the  earth, 
very  largely  dependent  upon  our  enemies  for  supplies,  and  permeated  with 
hostile  agents.  That  position  is  now  being  redeemed  under  stress  of  war. 
We  shall  not  lightly  return  hereafter  to  our  old  helpless  tolerance. 

It  would  appear  that  a  League  of  Nations  as  the  corner- 
stone of  peace,  wherein  each  nation  would  surrender  a  large 
portion  if  not  all  of  its  nationality,  and  enter  into  a  realm  of 
internationalism  founded  on  free  trade,  and  a  world  federation 
founded  on  brotherhood  alone,  is  a  dream  that  cannot  be 
realized  at  least  at  this  stage  of  world  development. 

Washington's  immortal  warning  against  "entangling  al- 
liances" is  swept  aside  with  the  declaration  that  "only  special 
and  limited  alliances  entangle;  and  we  recognize  and  accept  the 
duty  of  a  new  day  in  which  we  are  permitted  to  hope  for  a 
general  alliance  which  will  avoid  entanglements  and  clear  the 
air  of  the  world  for  common  understandings  and  the  mainten- 
ance of  common  rights." 

It  seems  reasonable  to  suppose  that  if  Washington  meant 
only  "special  and  limited  alliances,"  he  would  have  said  so.  But 
he  meant  what  he  said,  and  warned  his  country  against  all  en- 
tangling alliances,  special  and  general,  limited  and  unlimited. 
Furthermore,  if  special  and  limited  alliances  entangle  some,  why 
will  not  general  and  unlimited  alliances  entangle  more?  An  evil 
made  general  dies  not  become  a  virtue. 

If  to  the  one  stern  problem  of  establishing  and  securing  a 
peace  of  justice  and  righteousness  are  added  the  countless  and 
contradictory  visions  and  emotions  and  dreams  of  theorists;  if 
to  the  one  serious  question  of  securing  America's  peace  and 
safety — her  industrial  and  economic  safety — are  added  visions 
of  international  brotherhood  and  cosmic  beatitudes  through  a 
League  of  Nations,  there  will  be  no  peace. 

Washington  was  right;  and  no  sophistry,  no  clever  rhetoric 
can  sweep  aside  his  warning.  America's  dangers  are  greater 
to-day  than  ever.  Lifted  by  a  world  war  to  a  dazzling  place  of 
supremacy  and  power;  her  coffers  rilled  with  gold;  her  profits 
fabulous;  her  workers  intoxicated  with  high  wages;  her  many 
industries  turned  into  fountains  of  war  material;  her  whole 
government  centralized  and  bureaucracized  to  the  limit;  her 
responsible  leaders  clothed  with  almost  unlimited  authority; 
America  occupies  a  proud  but  perilous  place. 


200  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

The  great  danger  is  that  a  so-called  "democratic  peace"  will 
involve  America  in  socialistic,  political  and  economic  complica- 
tions calculated  to  undermine  her  institutions. 

And  what  is  a  "democratic  peace,"  pray?  Why  democratic? 
Is  this  a  democratic  war,  and  therefore  there  must  be  democratic 
peace?  Why  not  plain  "peace"? 

It  is  not  true  that  "our  soldiers  struggle  to  create  a  new  in- 
ternationalism which  shall  be  embodied  in  a  world  federation 
with  power  as  well  as  might  behind  its  decrees."  Our  soldiers 
struggle  to  protect  America  from  wrong,  injustice  and  perhaps 
political,  industrial  and  economic  slavery.  The  peace  that 
America  wants  and  demands  does  not  involve  a  League  of  Na- 
tions, or  a  World  Federation.  It  is  not  a  "democratic  peace" 
but  an  "American  peace"  that  we  want.  That  is  the  corner-stone 
of  the  structure. 
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *****  * 

The  American  Economict  predicts  that  the  proposed  League 
of  Nations  will  be  a  failure,  if  its  promoters  insist  upon  incor- 
porating in  it  the  doctrine  of  free-trade;  for  such  a  reactionary 
doctrine  will  not  be  acceptable  to  the  wise  and  far-seeing  leaders 
of  the  respective  nations.  For  that  very  reason  America  cannot 
afford  to  join  such  a  league. 

The  policy  of  protection  is  manifestly  liberal  and  progres- 
sive. 

If  co-operation  is  a  liberal  doctrine,  then  free-trade  is  not 
liberal,  for  the  latter  increases  competition. 

The  only  kind  of  co-operation  among  nations  that  is  practical 
and  workable  is  that  whereby  each  will  protect  itself  to  the 
fullest  degree,  and  thereby  become  strong  to  contribute  its  ut- 
most to  the  common  good  by  international  commerce  based  on 
fair  trade  and  not  free-trade ;  and  fair  trade  must  take  into  con- 
sideration labor  and  other  costs  of  production. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  201 


THE   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS   IN   JEOPARDY1 

Manifestly  not  one  problem  but  a  whole  group  of  most  com- 
plex problems  will  unavoidably  arise  when  there  is  an  attempt 
to  construct  a  League  with  all  the  incidents  and  powers  which  it 
must  possess.  And  yet  it  is  just  such  questions— generally 
touched  by  rude  hands — that  are  the  seed-beds  of  war.  These 
difficulties  and  others  which  I  need  not  name  may  be  ultimately 
overcome.  A  great  idea  has  come  into  the  political  world,  and 
there  may  prove  sufficient  driving  power,  foresight,  imagination, 
and  tenacity  of  purpose  to  bring  it  to  fruition.  Obviously  all 
that  is  proposed  cannot  be  accomplished  at  once  or,  it  is  prob- 
able, without  many  troublesome  preliminaries,  repeated  attempts, 
and  much  effort.  There  is  no  example  of  an  organisation 
equally  comprehensive  being  constructed  without  long  prepara- 
tion, The  Holy  Roman  Empire  preceded  the  German  Constitu- 
tion created  by  the  Peace  of  Westphalia.  It  was  recast  by 
Napoleon,  and  again  by  the  Allies  in  1815,  and  it  did  not  take  its 
present  form  until  it  had  been  repeatedly  modified.  The  Swiss 
Confederation,  as  it  now  exists,  is  the  last  stage  in  a  develop- 
ment going  back  to  the  League  of  the  three  Communities  in 
1291.  Analogies  drawn  from  the  United  States  of  America  are 
deceptive.  There  were  attempts  at  federation  before  the 
Colonies  separated  from  the  Mother  Country.  Penn  and  Frank- 
lin preceded  the  authors  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
and  the  loose  confederation  of  1781  led  up  to  that  which  exists 
to-day.  The  elements  of  "The  Federation  of  Europe"  do  not 
yet  exist.  The  phrase  may  be  a  useful  or  pleasing  metaphor; 
passed  off  as  a  reality,  it  is  a  delusion.  Experience  in  constitu- 
tion-making seems  to  prove  that  what  is  small  and  fragile  at 
first  may  have  unlimited  power  of  growth,  while  that  which  is 
huge  at  its  birth  is  often  a  short-lived  monstrosity.  The  more 
the  programme  of  the  League  is  studied  the  more  apparent  is  it 
that  the  advance  must  be  by  slow  stages.  "Supernationalism" 
must  come  gradually. 

It  is  noticeable  that  of  late  counter-proposals  are  coming  to 

1  By  John  Macdonell,  Editor  of  the  Journal  of  Comparative  Legislation 
and  member  of  the  Sub-Commission  to  South  Africa.  In  Contemporary 
Review  for  August,  1918. 


202  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

the  front.  There  are  suggestions  for  the  establishment  of  a 
League  of  Neutrals;  the  Armed  Neutrality  of  1780  and  1800  is 
to  be  revived  with  new  strength.  It  is  not  improbable  that,  if 
the  League  of  Nations  were  likely  to  be  formidable,  German 
diplomatists  would  counter  it  by  declaring  themselves  in  favor 
of  such  a  scheme,  which  would  enable  them  to  bring  forward, 
under  the  name  of  "freedom  of  the  seas"  proposals  intended  to 
cripple  the  naval-power  of  England.  Dr.  Shadwell  has  thrown 
out  the  idea  of  "the  creation  of  a  new  balance  of  power  on  a 
world-wide  scale  by  the  formation  of  two  Leagues  of  Nations, 
which  might  be  called  the  Land  League  and  the  Sea  League, 
because  the  first  would  be  connected  by  land  and  the  second  by 
sea.  It  would  not  mean  real  peace,  but  it  might  prevent  minor 
wars  and  preserve  the  world  from  war  for  a  long  time." 

These  are  only  two  examples  of  schemes  which  may  be  used 
to  defeat  or  delay  the  League  of  Nations  if  its  friends  ask  too 
much.  The  question  presses,  Could  not  something  useful, 
though  necessarily  imperfect  be  done  with  little  delay?  Could 
not  the  Entente  Powers  continue  to  act  together  after  peace, 
and  by  joint  economic  pressure  carry  out  the  main  object  of  a 
League  of  Nations?  Exercised  by  the  United  States  along  with 
the  other  Allies,  it  might  against  some  countries  be  irresistible. 
The  chief  possible  forms  of  it  are  these:  (a)  Entire  stoppage  of 
intercourse;  (b)  refusal  to  admit  ships  of  the  offending  nation 
to  the  ports  of  members  of  the  League;  (c)  differential  dues 
against  the  offender;  (d)  refusal  to  supply  raw  materials;  (e) 
refusal  to  admit  emigrants;  (f)  refusal  to  allow  loans  to  be 
brought  out  or  securities  to  be  quoted.  I  admit  that  the  history 
of  nonintercourse  measures  is  not  encouraging.  They  were 
tried  twice  by  the  United  States,  and  with  indifferent  success. 
The  first  Embargo  Act  was  intended  by  its  author,  Jefferson,  to 
be  a  substitute  for  war.  It  was,  he  said,  to  save  the  nation  at 
once  from  risks  and  horrors  of  war,  and  to  set  an  example  to 
the  world  by  showing  that  nations  may  be  brought  to  justice  by 
appeals  to  their  interests  as  well  as  by  appeals  to  arms.  The 
measure,  no  doubt,  caused  much  waste,  and  roused  angry  feel- 
ings. It  was  imperfectly  carried  out.  It  proved  injurious  to 
friends  almost  as  much  as  to  enemies.  The  second  Embargo  Act 
of  1808  was  also  somewhat  of  a  failure,  according  to  Madison, 
"because  the  Government  did  not  sufficiently  distrust  those 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  203 

whose  successful  violence  against  the  law  had  led  to  the  general 
discontent  which  called  for  its  repeal!"  "The  states  them- 
selves," says  President  Wilson  in  his  History,  "suffered  more 
from  the  Act  than  the  nations  whose  trade  they  struck  at. 
America's  own  trade  was  ruined.  Ships  rotted  at  the  wharves — 
the  ships  which  but  yesterday  carried  the  commerce  of  the 
world.  The  quays  were  deserted.  Nothing  would  sell  any  more 
at  its  old  price.  The  Southern  planters  suffered  even  more 
keenly  than  the  New  England  merchants.  Their  tobacco,  rice, 
and  cotton  could  not  be  sold,  and  yet  their  farm  hands,  who 
were  slaves,  could  not  be  discharged  and  had  to  be  maintained. 
The  wheat  and  live  stock  of  the  Middle  States  lost  half  their 
market.  It  was  mere  bankruptcy  for  the  whole  country.  No 
vigilance  or  compulsion  could  really  enforce  the  Act,  it  is  true. 
Smuggling  took  the  place  of  legitimate  trade." 

This  experience  is  not  conclusive.  Non-intercourse  is  only 
one  of  several  practicable  forms  of  economic  coercion.  The 
interdependence  of  nations  is  much  greater  than  it  was  in  1808. 
At  all  events,  economic  pressure  is  not  attended  with  some  of 
the  dangers  inseparable  from  the  creation  of  a  large  army  placed 
at  the  disposal  of  the  majority  of  the  members  of  the  League. 
Still,  no  doubt  such  measures  would  again  fail  if  one  half  of  the 
people  were  not  in  earnest  in  the  desire  for  peace,  and  the 
other  half  were  indifferent  to  anything  but  "business  as  be- 
fore," which  was  the  state  of  things  when  Jefferson  applied 
economic  pressure  to  England  and  France.  With  such  condi- 
tions and  such  a  prevalent  temper  no  League  of  Nations  is 
likely  to  succeed. 

A  great  idea  having  entered  the  world,  let  it  not  vanish  in 
misty  sentiment,  or  fail  by  trying  too  much.  There  is  a  loss 
almost  as  deplorable  as  that  of  young  lives— the  suffering  of  en- 
thusiasm which  does  not  come  more  than  once  in  several  gen- 
erations, to  cool  down  or  be  dissipated,  the  failure  to  make  use 
of  a  large  idea  of  international  relations,  which  has  penetrated 
many  minds  never  before  open  to  it.  Much  thinking  needed 
for  the  greater  task  has  yet  to  be  done;  something  smaller  but 
not  without  value  is  possible;  and  the  seed  of  further  achieve- 
ments may  be  sown  without  waiting.  The  basis  of  a  League 
sufficient  to  do  good  work  already  exists. 

"We  have,"  to  quote  Lord  Parker's  wise  words,  "a  number 


204  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

of  nations,  great  and  small,  united  by  the  common  conception 
of  war  as  a  danger  to  civilisation,  and  by  determination  that  on 
no  future  occasion  will  they  (out  of  regard  for  their  private 
advantage)  stand  by  and  see  wrong  done  by  the  powerful  to 
the  weak.  My  fear  has  been,  and  is,  that  we  should  lose  the 
practical  advantage  which  we  have  gained  by  a  fruitless  en- 
deavor to  secure  theoretic  perfection.  Let  us  see  if  we  cannot 
give  greater  permanence  to  the  existing  alliance  which  might 
well  be  done  during  the  war  and  which,  if  done,  might  have  a 
potent  influence  in  settling  the  terms  of  peace  rather  than  some- 
thing which,  if  possible  at  all,  is  only  possible  after  long  nego- 
tiation and  discussion,  which  cannot  conveniently  take  place  as 
long  as  the  war  lasts." 


LORD  CECIL  IN  FAVOR  OF  A  WORLD 
LEAGUE  * 

London,  Feb.  15. — Lord  Robert  Cecil,  Minister  oi  Blockade, 
who  announced  in  the  House  of  Commons  recently  that  he  him- 
self had  prepared  a  plan  for  a  league  of  nations,  discussed  the 
whole  problem  today.  While  declining  to  give  a  detailed  outline 
of  his  plan,  which,  with  others,  is  now  engaging  the  considera- 
tion of  the  British  Government,  he  indicated  several  conclusions 
to  which  his  study  of  the  problem  had  led  him. 

"The  first  and  most  important  matter  to  be  insured  by  any 
adequate  league  of  nations,"  said  Lord  Robert,  "is  that  no  na- 
tion shall  go  to  war  until  the  matter  in  dispute  has  been  sub- 
mitted to  international  consideration.  If  at  first  the  league  of 
nations  gets  no  further  than  this  it  will  be  worth  while,  and  a 
beginning  would  be  made  from  which  wider  development  is 
possible  in  due  course." 

"One  thing  that  promises  success  for  the  league  of  nations 
idea,"  said  Lord  Robert,  "is  that  the  world  for  the  first  time  in 
history  is  prepared  to  give  it  favorable  consideration.  Until  the 
outbreak  of  this  war  public  opinion,  internationally  speaking, 
was  never  favorable.  That  has  been  changed,  and  there  will  be 

1  From  the  New  York  Times,  February   16,   1918. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  205 

a  vehement  desire  on  all  sides  at  the  close  of  this  war  to  con- 
sider seriously  every  proposal  that  promises  to  prevent  any  such 
struggle  occurring  again." 

FAVORS  USING  ECONOMIC  WEAPON 

"Every  student  of  the  League  of  Nations  idea,"  he  continued, 
"finds  certain  difficulties  at  the  outset.  One  of  these  is  how  the 
decrees  of  such  a  league  can  be  enforced.  It  is  natural  to  draw 
an  analogy  between  the  growth  of  international  law  and  order 
with  the  growth  of  law  and  order  within  an  individual  country, 
and,  while  I  admit  that  such  an  analogy  must  not  be  carried  too 
far,  I  find  much  that  is  instructive  in  the  development  of  our 
English  commonwealth  from  the  state  of  anarchy  which  existed 
over  a  long  period  after  the  Wars  of  the  Roses. 

"How  did  a  strong  English  King  finally  gain  ascendency  and 
control  over  the  warring  Barons?  He  instituted  a  central  body 
which  enforced  decrees  on  the  Barons  largely  by  economic 
means. 

"I  am  convinced  that  that  is  the  line  upon  which  a  league  of 
nations  may  hope  to  proceed  effectively.  My  experience  in  the 
present  war  has  taught  me  the  great  power  of  an  economic 
weapon.  How  would  a  league  of  nations  use  it?  Well,  for  ex- 
ample, if  any  nation  went  to  war  with  another  without  sub- 
mitting its  dispute  to  international  consideration,  it  would  forth- 
with be  cut  off  from  commercial  intercourse  with  every  member 
of  the  league.  That  would  be  a  tremendous  weapon,  and  one 
that  few,  if  any,  nations  would  care  to  defy. 

"The  first  thing  to  be  done  is  to  decide  definitely  what  laws 
we  shall  try  to  enforce  through  our  league  of  nations,  and  since 
we  are  starting  from  the  beginning  we  should  have  these  laws 
as  simple  as  possible.  Now,  even  today,  I  doubt  whether  it  is 
yet  possible  to  induce  the  nations  of  the  world  to  put  themselves 
completely  under  control  of  any  international  organization. 
Many  nations  would  still,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  reserve 
the  right  to  defend  for  themselves  what  they  regard  as  vital 
interests  to  their  existence. 

"I  do  not  believe  that  feeling  will  be  found  to  have  com- 
pletely vanished  at  the  end  of  this  war.  I,  therefore,  am  dis- 
posed to  aim  at  the  rather  moderate  and  cautious  step,  and  will 


206  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

consider  that  we  have  done  well  if  we  feel  that  we  are  moving 
more  freely  and  soundly  than  if  we  advanced  too  rapidly.  It 
may  be  that  we  shall  be  unable  to  go  further  at  first  than  to  lay 
down  the  dictum  that  no  nation  shall  engage  in  war  until  the 
matter  under  dispute  has  been  submitted  to  international  con- 
sideration. Even  that  would  be  a  great  advantage. 

AFRAID   OF    ELABORATE    SCHEMES 

"I  rely  rather  on  international  conference  than  on  interna- 
tional tribunals  in  dealing  with  the  larger  international  dis- 
putes. The  most  desirable  step,  in  my  opinion,  is  to  get  nations 
into  the  habit  of  settling  their  own  differences  by  other  means 
than  war  and  to  lay  down  such  regulations  as  will  enforce  this 
habit. 

"If  prolonged  international  consideration  of  the  League  of 
Nations  idea  shows  that  we  can  go  still  further,  nobody  will  be 
more  rejoiced  than  I,  but  I  am  a  little  afraid  when  I  see  some 
of  the  elaborate  schemes  arranged  in  various  quarters.  They 
will  be  found  open  to  many  objections  when  they  come  to  the 
international  table  for  examination,  and  I  am  afraid  that  the 
enemies  of  this  great  reform,  who  will  not  dare  to  oppose  it 
directly,  will  try  to  destroy  it  by  nibbling  at  it  with  objections  to 
details. 

"Finally,  I  would  say  that  although  a  league  of  nations  to  be 
perfect  should  embrace  all  nations  of  the  world,  it  may  have  to 
begin  with  a  more  restricted  membership,  so  to  insure  that  only 
those  nations  which  sincerely  favor  it  shall  be  partners." 

He  said  he  could  not  believe  that  agreements  for  disarma- 
ment were  practicable  at  the  present  time,  because  it  was  impos- 
sible under  present  circumstances  to  put  credence  in  the  signa- 
tures or  written  words  of  certain  nations.  He  went  on: 

"But  disarmament  will  come  of  itself  in  time.  A  hundred 
years  ago  no  man  in  England  went  out  into  the  street  at  night 
without  arms.  Today  not  one  man  in  a  thousand  carries  any 
weapon.  The  disarmament  of  nations  will  come  similarly,  as 
soon  as  they  are  able  to  regard  themselves  safe  in  the  world's 
highways." 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  207 


THE  BACKGROUND  OF  AGGRESSION  * 

In  his  book  The  League  of  Nations,  Mr.  Brailsford,  ap- 
proaching the  problem  in  something  of  the  spirit  of  the 
scientific  criminologist,  has  shown  very  clearly — more  clearly 
perhaps  than  has  been  shown  by  any  other  writer — the  dan- 
ger which  threatens  the  whole  device  of  a  League  of  Nations 
as  a  solvent  of  international  anarchy.  On  the  side  of  the 
English  and  the  Americans  a  League  of  Nations  is  con- 
ceived mainly  as  a  means  of  coercing  disturbers  of  the  ex- 
isting order.  And  they  so  conceive  it  because  the  existing 
order  of  the  world,  with  the  great  undeveloped  spaces  in  their 
possession  and  no  historical  grievances  to  redress,  is  for 
them,  on  the  whole,  a  very  satisfactory  order.  But  to  cer- 
tain other  peoples,  and  notably  the  peoples  of  the  Central 
Empires,  the  mere  crystalization  of  the  existing  order  may 
represent  nothing  more  than  the  confirmation  of  the  privi- 
leges of  triumphant  force  which  they  are  entitled  to  upset 
by  a  "righteous  rebellion"  whenever  the  opportunity  should 
present  itself.  Until  we  have  taken  more  fully  into  account 
the  weight  of  this  consideration,  and  all  that  is  implied  in  it, 
we  shall  fail  to  win  the  peoples  of  the  Central  Empires  to 
real  cooperation  in  lasting  peace.  So  far,  almost  all  the  plans 
for  the  maintenance  of  peace,  of  Anglo-Saxon  origin,  are 
marked  by  the  outstanding  characteristic  of  early  methods 
of  maintaining  peace  within  the  state.  The  problem  is  con- 
ceived first  and  last  as  one  of  repression.  Having  drawn  a 
new  map,  we  are  to  see  that  respect  for  it  is  enforced  by 
preponderant  power.  Such  a  conception,  of  course,  implies, 
not  only  that  the  world  as  now  organized  internationally,  or 
with  such  redistribution  of  territory  as  the  Allies  may  enforce 
at  the  peace,  with  about  the  currently  accepted  principles  of 
national  rights,  economic  and  political,  is  in  itself  just, 
but  that  it  will  remain  so  permanently. 

The  solution  is  not  a  matter  of  map  drawing,  but  of 
modifying  the  rights  which  have  heretofore  attached  to 
national  sovereignty.  M.  Ribot  says  Alsace-Lorraine  "be- 

1  By  Norman  Angell.  In  the  New  Republic.  September  8,  IQI/- 
p.  150. 


208  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

longs"  to  France;  Bethmann-Holweg  that  it  "belongs"  to 
Germany.  But  if  we  could  imagine  the  provinces  being 
handed  over  to  France,  and  France  exercising  the  rights  of 
"proprietorship"  hitherto  recognized  as  belonging  to  national 
proprietorship,  and  shutting  out  Germany  from  access  to  the 
ore  fields  of  Lorraine  (thus  depriving  them  of  a  necessary 
element  of  their  economic  welfare),  we  have  merely  created 
conditions  morally  certain  to  render  impossible  that  form  of 
the  German  spirit  which  we  all  admit  to  be  indispensable  to 
the  destruction  of  German  militarism  and  to  the  permanent 
peace  of  the  world.  On  the  other  side,  so  long  as  Germany 
regards  her  sovereignty  in  Alsace  as  an  absolute  thing  not  to 
be  limited  by  definite  obligations  to  the  peoples  of  those 
provinces  and  to  the  world,  France  will  oppose  any  real  re- 
conciliation with  Germany,  and  make  our  League  of  Nations 
a  fiction.  No  mere  manipulation  of  the  map  will  save  us  from 
either  horn  of  the  dilemma. 

The  question  Mr.  Brailsford  has  set  himself  to  answer  is: 
"Under  what  political  and  economic  conditions  would  the 
creation  of  a  League  of  Nations  be  a  hopeful  venture?" 
Whatever  the  answer,  it  must  include  a  very  great  change  in 
our  conception  of  national  right  and  international  obligation. 
The  independence  and  sovereignty  of  states  must  no  longer, 
for  instance,  include  the  right  to  block  the  necessary  access 
of  other  states  to  the  seas,  or,  in  certain  cases,  to  raw  ma- 
terials and  markets.  The  whole  question  of  sea  law  and 
belligerent  rights  must  be  approached  from  a  new  angle. 
There  must  be  some  means  of  change,  even  of  frontiers, 
without  war.  A  League  to  Enforce  Peace  that  enforced  the 
resolutions  of  the  Paris  Conference,  sustained  the  right  of 
one  empire  to  make  a  preserve  of  its  dependent  undeveloped 
territories,  of  some  small  state  to  block  the  natural  economic 
highway  of  a  large  one,  would  really  be  one  group  of  nations 
maintaining  by  force  special  privileges  as  against  another 
group  excluded  from  them.  It  would  merely  be  the  old  con- 
flict of  Alliance  or  Balance  of  Power  in  a  new  form. 

Yet  we  are  not  ready  for  the  very  profound  modification 
of  political  ideas  touching  national  independence  and  sov- 
ereignty necessary  to  make  a  League  of  Nations  workable, 
and  consequently  any  settlement  a  very  hopeful  one.  For  the 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  209 

League  of  Nations  must  be  an  integral  part  of  the  settlement, 
if  even  on  its  territorial  side  it  is  to  offer  hopes  of  perma- 
nence. The  prevailing  conception  of  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace,  even  among  supporters,  is  that  of  a  piece  of  machinery 
to  be  brought  into  being  after  the  war,  not  at  all  a  part  of  the 
problem  of  the  war  itself  and  related  to  its  conduct  and  con- 
clusion. Yet,  if  it  is  not  a  reality  to  the  extent  of  being  a 
living  policy  with  obvious  chances  of  success,  when  we  come 
to  make  peace  the  parties  to  the  settlement  will  be  con- 
cerned mainly  to  secure  their  own  safety  by  preponderance 
and  "strategic  frontiers."  And  the  necessary  violation  of 
national  rights  involved  in  that  will  condemn  any  subsequent 
League  to  failure.  "The  two  questions,"  says  Mr.  Brails- 
ford  most  truly,  ''must  be  solved  as  a  whole.  The  settlement 
must  be  the  preparation  for  any  future  Society  of  Nations. 
The  stability  and  efficacy  of  a  League  of  Nations  depend  not 
merely  on  the  wise  drafting  of  its  constitution,  but  also  on 
the  solution  reached  in  the  war  settlement  of  our  problems 
of  nationality,  colonial  expansion,  international  trade,  sea 
power  and  alliances." 

Any  attempt  to  settle  questions  of  nationality  without  tak- 
ing into  account  the  two  dominant  motives  which  determine 
the  policy  of  the  great  Powers  is  bound  to  fail.  Those  two 
dominant  motives  are  first  security,  and  secondly  vital 
economic  interest.  At  present  the  great  Powers  have  no 
security  but  their  own  strength,  actual  and  potential.  That 
compels  them,  not  only,  as  already  indicated,  to  violate  the 
principle  of  nationality  in  order  to  secure  strategic  frontiers, 
but  to  add  by  annexation  to  their  own  forces  human  and  ma- 
terial, and  to  weaken  those  of  a  possible  enemy;  while  the 
economic  motive  pushes  to  the  same  violations  in  order  that 
the  possession  of  a  given  territory  may  secure  freedom  of 
economic  movements  to  the  sea,  or  access  to  raw  materials 
or  markets. 

The  danger  of  these  violations  is  not  confined  to  the  Cen- 
tral Powers.  The  same  considerations  have  stood  for  genera- 
tions, and  stand  to-day,  in  the  way  not  only  of  an  inde- 
pendent Ireland,  but  of  an  Ireland  having  the  same  autonomy 
as  a  British  self-governing  colony.  Mr.  Brailsford  notes  some 
of  the  other  Allied  cases: 


210  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Italy,  in  order  that  she  may  have  unchallenged  naval  con- 
trol of  the  Adriatic  and  certain  ports  for  commercial  pur- 
poses, is  claiming  the  larger  part  of  Dalmatia,  where  the 
Italians- are  outnumbered  niore  than  ten  to  one.  Thus,  not 
only  would  Slovenes,  Croats  and  Serbs  be  placed  under  the 
government  of  a  tiny  minority  of  aliens,  but  the  retention  of 
this  country  by  an  alien  clique  might  shut  out  from  free 
access  to  the  sea  more  than  fifty  millions  of  Germans,  May- 
gars  and  Slavs. 

Take  the  cause  of  an  independent  Bohemia.  One-third  of 
its  population  would  be  Maygar  or  German — a  far  more  im- 
portant minority  than  that  of  Ulster  which  has  so  long 
helped  to  make  the  settlement  of  Ireland  impossible;  and  in 
the  case  of  Bohemia  it  would  be  complicated  by  the  language 
question,  which  does  not  exist  in  Ireland.  And  whereas  Ire- 
land is  at  least  open  to  the  world  by  her  ports,  Bohemia  is 
wedged  in  territorially  between  her  enemies,  whose  access  to 
the  sea  her  allies  would  be  blocking. 

Rumania  in  entering  the  war  laid  claims  to  Austrian  ter- 
ritory which  as  a  whole  would  contain  as  many  Maygars  and 
Germans  as  Rumanians.  In  the  case  of  one  district  the  Ru- 
manians would  be  a  tiny  minority. 

The  Allies,  in  order  to  weaken  Bulgaria,  proposed  to  re- 
conquer Macedonia  for  the  Serbs,  although  the  greater  part 
of  the  country  is  emphatically  and  even  fanatically  Bulgarian 
by  allegiance  and  choice,  and  although  the  Powers  previously 
allotted  the  country  to  Bulgaria,  and  although  the  second 
Balkan  war  was  due  to  Serbia's  refusal  to  give  effect  to  the 
European  decision. 

And  these  are  but  samples  on  the  Allied  side  of  the 
fence.  If  the  Allies,  who  proclaim  themselves  to  be  fight- 
ing for  nationality  and  the  rights  of  all  people  to  their  own 
government,  feel  themselves  justified  on  behalf  of  security 
in  violating  their  own  principles  to  that  extent,  what  may  we 
not  expect  from  Germans  and  Austrians  who  do  not  em- 
phasize that  purpose?  If  the  need  for  security  justifies  it, 
the  Germans,  who  will  be  the  weaker  and  more  unpopular 
group,  will  be  able  to  invoke  it  with  very  much  greater  force. 

We  are  still  as  nations  a  very  long  way  from  the  con- 
ception that  our  national  independence  must  be  limited  by 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  211 

our  international  obligations.  The  old  nationalist  notion  that 
there  is  something  derogatory  and  unpatriotic  in  ceding  any 
part  of  our  national  sovereignty  or  independence  has  still  an 
almost  fanatical  strength.  And  we  have  no  clear  idea  of  just 
how  far  that  sovereignty  and  independence  must  be  ceded 
for  the  purpose  of  international  organization  for  security.  It 
is  these  two  things  mainly — the  force  of  the  old  conceptions 
and  the  lack  of  any  definiteness  of  a  newer  principle — which 
stand  mainly,  and  will  stand  at  the  peace,  in  the  way  of  set- 
tlement. 

The  disturbing  fact  in  connection  therewith  is  that  these 
changes  in  conception  and  principle  cannot  be  made  by  the 
public  opinion  of  a  great  country  from  one  day  to  another. 
Coming  to  the  settlement  dominated  by  the  old  notions  of 
international  law,  independence,  sovereignty,  it  would  tend 
to  compel  the  rejection  of  new  and  strange  principles. 

The  only  way  to  break  down  the  strangeness  which  at 
the  crucial  moment  may  cause  new  principles  to  be  misunder- 
stood and  misinterpreted  is  to  ensure  their  thorough  discus- 
sion beforehand.  But  upon  that  discussion  there  has  been 
placed  an  almost  official  ban.  By  some  sort  of  miracle  the 
democracies  are  to  be  fitted  to  face  entirely  new  conditions 
and  apply  new  policies,  with  no  preparation  whatever,  with- 
out that  discussion  which  is  the  chief  means  of  political  edu- 
cation. Even  certain  peace  organizations,  whose  purpose  is 
to  prepare  the  world  for  the  difficult  problems  of  inter- 
nationalism, have  laid  down  the  strange  doctrine  that  these 
matters  should  not  be  studied  by  the  mass  at  all  just  now. 
They  may  be  studied  when  the  damage  is  done,  when,  hur- 
ried at  some  juncture  into  a  rapid  settlement,  mankind  may 
find  itself  committed  to  decisions  which,  as  Mr.  Lloyd  George 
said  the  other  day,  may  bind  them  for  generations,  but  which 
may  well  defeat  the  objects  for  which  the  war  is  being 
fought. 


212  SELECTED  ARTICLES 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  x 

It  should  be  clearly  understood  that  any  such  plan  of  inter- 
national cooperation  as  this  league  of  nations,  would  involve 
the  giving  up  by  each  nation  included  in  the  league  of  the  ab- 
solute right  of  its  government  to  deal  finally  and  without  appeal 
except  to  war,  with  questions  arising  out  of  treaties  or  relations 
between  itself  and  some  other  government.  Little  serious  prog- 
ress can  be  made  in  getting  rid  of  war  and  in  better  organizing 
the  world  until  the  free  peoples  are  ready  to  have  their  several 
governments  take  this  long  step  forward. 

It  is  important  that  this  league  of  nations  should  begin  by 
not  attempting  too  much.  The  line  of  least  resistance,  and  there- 
fore of  greatest  possible  progress,  is  to  lay  stress  upon  the  power 
and  authority  of  a  single  international  judicial  authority,  and  to 
accustom  the  public  opinion  of  the  world  to  seek  and  to  defer 
to  the  findings  of  such  authority.  All  international  agreements 
between  members  of  the  league  would  in  effect  be  acts  of  inter- 
national legislation,  and  in  due  time  some  formal  international 
legislative  body  might  be  brought  into  existence.  It  would  be 
much  better,  however,  to  give  this  body  a  chance  to  grow  up 
naturally,  rather  than  to  attempt  to  bring  it  into  existence  as 
part  of  a  logical  and  systematically  worked-out  plan. 

Such  a  league  of  nations  as  is  here  outlined  will  rest  upon  a 
moral  foundation.  Its  aim  will  be  to  advance  the  good  order, 
the  satisfaction  and  the  happiness  of  the  world.  It  will  not  be, 
and  should  not  be,  merely  a  league  to  enforce  peace.  A  league 
of  that  name  might  well  rest  solely  upon  force  and  entirely  over- 
look both  law  and  equity.  Doubtless  Germany  and  Austria- 
Hungary  now  feel  that  they  are  joint  and  several  members  of  a 
highly  meritorious  league  to  enforce  peace — peace  upon  their 
own  terms  and  as  they  conceive  it.  A  league  of  nations  that 
aims  to  declare  and  to  enforce  principles  of  international  law 
and  justice,  will  of  necessity  be  a  league  to  establish  peace,  be- 
cause it  will  be  a  league  to  establish  those  foundations  upon 
which  alone  permanent  peace  can  rest. 

1  By  Nicholas  Murray  Butler,  President  of  Columbia  University.  In 
the  London  Daily  Chronicle,  July  27,  1918. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  213 


WHY  PEACE  MUST  BE  ENFORCED  * 

Three  main  sanctions  have  been  suggested  for  the  interna- 
tional law  which  a  League  of  Peace  will  formulate  and  maintain. 
I  leave  out  of  account  diplomatic  pressure,  because  diplomatic 
pressure  has  never  been  accounted  sufficient  when  a  real  crisis 
arises.    The  three  are: 
I.     Public  opinion. 
II.     Economic  pressure. 

III.    Force. 

Let  us  take  them  up  in  order. 

First,  Public  opinion.  Of  course,  no  sanction  can  have  the 
effect  desired  unless  it  is  strong  enough  to  deter  those  who  are 
tempted  to  disregard  it.  Can  public  opinion  do  this?  Can  it  of 
itself  compel  obedience  to  international  law?  While  it  is  an 
axiom  of  political  science  that  no  law  can  be  enforced  contrary 
to  public  opinion,  the  converse  is,  of  course,  not  true.  Public 
opinion  can  no  more  prevent  a  great  nation  violating  the  canons 
of  international  law,  as  has  amply  been  demonstrated  in  the 
present  war,  than  can  the  public  opinion  within  a  nation  appre- 
hend a  criminal  or  put  down  a  riot.  Public  opinion  must  sus- 
tain international  law  and  approve  its  enforcement,  but  public 
opinion  as  a  substitute  for  force  is  a  pure  chimera. 

Second,  Economic  pressure.  Will  non-intercourse  or  eco- 
nomic pressure  be  sufficient  to  enforce  the  rules  of  the  league? 
This  phase  of  the  question  has  been  little  discussed  until  very 
recently. 

The  argument  runs  that  if  a  nation  were  absolutely  cut  off 
from  all  intercourse  with  the  rest  of  the  world  it  would  suffer 
so  severely  that  it  would  have  to  give  in.  If  all  credit,  all  loans, 
all  trade  were  stopped,  if  even  letters  and  telegrams  were  pro- 
hibited, no  nation  could  endure  such  a  strangling  isolation  and 
would  come  to  terms. 

Mr.  Herbert  S.  Houston,  in  his  address  before  the  Interna- 
tional Peace  Conference  at  the  Panama-Pacific  Exposition  in 
San  Francisco  last  October,  expresses  this  view  most  succinctly 
when  he  says: 

1  By  Hamilton  Holt.  Independent,    p.  212.    February  5,   1917. 


214  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

The  most  effective  factors  in  world-wide  economic  pressure,  such  as 
would  be  required  to  compel  nations  to  take  justiciable  issues  to  a  World 
Court  for  decision  are  a  group  of  international  forces.  Today  money  is 
international  because  in  all  civilized  countries  it  has  gold  as  the  common 
basis.  Credit  based  on  gold  is  international.  Commerce  based  on  money 
and  on  credit  is  international.  Then  the  amazing  network  of  agencies 
by  which  money  and  credit  and  commerce  are  employed  in  the  world  are 
also  international.  Take  the  stock  exchanges,  the  cables,  the  wireless,  the 
international  postal  service  and  the  wonderful  modern  facilities  for  com- 
munication and  intercommunication,  all  these  are  international  forces. 
They  are  common  to  all  nations.  In  the  truest  sense  they  are  independent 
of  race,  of  language,  of  religion,  of  culture,  of  government,  and  of  every 
other  human  limitation.  That  is  one  of  their  chief  merits  in  making 
them  the  most  effective  possible  power  used  in  the  form  of  economic  pres- 
sure to  put  behind  a  World  Court. 

Now  while  economic  embargoes  would  undoubtedly  exert  a 
very  great  pressure  in  international  affairs,  and  would  doubt- 
less, in  many  instances,  be  sufficient  to  bring  about  a  recourse  to 
courts  and  councils  of  conciliation,  there  are  several  reasons  to 
think  it  would  not  always  avail.  Two  of  the  most  important  are 
as/  follows : 

f  Economic  pressure  can  never  be  as  great  as  physical  pressure, 
both  by  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  and  because,  as  President 
Lowell  of  Harvard  University  has  recently  pointed  out,  "the  re- 
sistance of  the  interests  effected  will  be  at  least  as  great  against 
an  economic  boycott  as  against  war,  and  they  will  be  constantly 
striving  to  break  it  down,  whereas,  war  once  declared  silences 
opposition — a  fact  which  any  nation  that  thought  of  defying  a 
League  of  Peace  would  not  fail  to  note." 

The  proposal  to  resort  to  non-intercourse  will  have  to  meet 
this  practical  difficulty.  When  such  a  measure  is  to  be  employed 
how  can  the  coercing  powers  equitably  apportion  the  pressure 
among  themselves?  In  undertaking  to  employ  military  force 
this  may  not  be  quite  so  difficult,  but  when  economic  pressure  is 
to  be  employed,  it  is  conceivable  that  a  single  nation  may  have 
to  bear  practically  the  entire  cost  of  the  undertaking.  In  fact 
every  nation  which  is  party  to  the  league,  as  has  been  said  by 
the  minority  report  of  the  "Committee  of  the  American  Cham- 
bers of  Commerce"  would  have  to  be  prepared  to  risk,  or  sacri- 
fice for  the  time  its  entire  trade  with  an  offending  nation,  even 
tho  other  members  of  the  league  suffered  no  corresponding  loss. 
Unless  the  nations  were  willing  to  devise  some  plan  by  which 
the  nation  that  suffered  the  most  from  the  loss  of  trade  would 
be  compensated  by  the  others  this  objection  might  be  almost 
insuperable. 

Third,  Force.     If  public  opinion  and  economic  pressure  will 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  215 

not  always  and  invariably  suffice  to  compel  a  recourse  to  the 
peaceful  adjustment  of  international  disputes,  we  must  evidently 
fall  back  on  force  as  the  ultimate  sanction.  For,  as  Woolf  says 
in  The  New  Statesman,  July  10,  1915,  "The  maintenance  of  over- 
whelming power  in  the  great  nations  and  the  continuance  of 
their  agreement"  are  the  only  guarantee  of  the  future  -peace  of 
the  world. 

The  nations  are  now  living  in  a  world  in  which  there  are 
laws  to  prevent  war  but  no  force  to  compel  a  resort  to  them.  It 
would  be  an  exact  parallel  if  within  the  state  there  were  elabor- 
ate laws  governing  the  conduct  of  persons  engaged  in  riots, 
murder  and  violence  but  none  to  prevent  riot,  murder  and  vio- 
lence and  no  police  to  enforce  them.  This  aspect  of  the  case  has 
recently  been  discussed  by  Elihu  Root,  who  says : 

Many  states  have  grown  so  great  that  there  is  no  power  capable  of 
imposing  punishment  upon  them  except  the  power  of  collective  civilization 
outside  the  state  .  .  .  and  the  only  possibility  of  establishing  real  restraint 
by  law  seems  to  remain  to  give  effect  to  the  undoubted  will  of  the  vast 
majority  of  mankind. 

In  other  words,  Mr.  Root  proposes  to  establish  an  interna- 
tional criminal  law. 

If,  then,  we  must  have  force  as  the  ultimate  sanction  to 
bring  the  nations  before  the  courts  and  councils,  are  there  not 
times  when  economic  pressure  will  do  just  as  well  as  force  and 
the  nations  will  not  have  to  resort  to  the  bloody  arbitrament  of 
war?  Or,  if  force  cannot  entirely  be  dispensed  with,  why  might 
not  some  members  of  the  league  be  permitted  to  use  economic 
force  while  the  other  fight?  Let  us  take  up  the  latter  question 
first. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  if  a  nation  knows  that  certainly, 
instantly  and  concertedly  all  the  other  nations  will  make  war 
against  it  the  minute  it  begins  hostilities,  such  a  nation  will  not 
break  the  peace  as  long  as  the  force  of  the  league  is  unques- 
tionably superior  to  its  own  force.  In  other  words,  the  cer- 
tainty that  an  overwhelming  force  will  be  used  means  that  prac- 
tically it  never  will  be  usedy  The  only  conceivable  contingency 
in  which  the  force  of  the  league  might  not  be  effective  would 
be  in  the  improbably  but  not  impossibly  rare  case  when  the  mem- 
bers of  the  league  divide  into  two  nearly  equal  groups,  as  the 
American  states  did  in  the  Civil  War.  Such  a  contingency,  tho 
remote,  can,  of  course,  never  be  absolutely  guarded  against. 


216  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

But  the  real  danger  of  trying  to  separate  economic  from  mil- 
itary pressure  and  exerting  it  independently  lies  in  this  fact:  If 
the  choice  is  open  as  to  which  course  may  be  pursued,  delay 
and  parleying  ensue  after  the  danger  has  arisen,  and  that  in  turn 
would  give  the  offending  nation  opportunity  to  befog  the  issue 
with  intrigue,  with  the  possibility  that  either  nothing  at  all  would 
be  done,  and  the  guilty  nation  escape  punishment,  or  else  the 
intrigue  would  continue  until  war  would  become  inevitable.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  the  offending  nation  knew  that  no  parleying 
and  intrigue  could  prevent  instant  military  intervention  it  would 
behave  itself  from  the  beginning  and  neither  injustice  nor  war 
would  be  nearly  so  likely  to  ensue. 

Several  of  the  various  American  peace  organizations,  as  well 
as  the  American  Chamber  of  Commerce,  which  represent  the 
business  life  of  the  United  States,  have  exprest  a  belief  that 
there  is  a  stage  in  the  proceedings  before  hostilities  are  actually 
reached  where  economic  pressure  might  advantageously  be  ap- 
plied. There  are  two  stages,  it  is  claimed,  in  which  joint  inter- 
vention of  the  league  might  take  place,  to  put  pressure  upon  a 
recalcitrant  nation.  The  first  stage  is  that  in  which  war  is  being 
threatened  by  one  power  against  a  second  when  an  ultimatum 
might  be  presented  and  the  mobilization  of  troops  begun.  This 
would  be  the  stage  for  economic  pressure.  But  once  actual 
hostilities  or  invasion  had  ensued  the  second  state  would  be 
reached  and  military  pressure  automatically  applied.  The  League 
to  Enforce  Peace  has  been  willing  to  accept  an  amendment 
granting  the  value  of  economic  pressure  before  military  pres- 
sure, provided  military  pressure  follows  the  instant  hostilities 
begin.  But  the  probability  is  that  there  would  not  be  a  suffi- 
ciently extended  time  between  the  utlimatum  and  actual  hos- 
tilities in  modern  warfare  to  bring  economic  pressure  into  action 
or  to  permit  pressure  to  exert  any  deterrent  effect  on  the  na- 
tion bent  on  war.  In  other  words,  economic  pressure  is  of  more 
theoretical  than  practical  value,  since  modern  wars  begin  so 
suddenly. 

In  taking  up  the  question  of  whether  all  members  of  the 
league  must  invariably  furnish  their  quota  of  force  against  the 
recalcitrant  nation,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  if  it  is  necessary 
it  must  be  done.  But  as  a  practical  proposition,  if  all  nations 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  217 

exert  economic  pressure  it  may  be  sufficient  for  certain  nations 
of  the  league  alone  to  furnish  the  military  force. 

When  the  Hague  Court  announced  its  decision  in  the  Ven- 
ezuela case  in  1904  it  called  upon  the  United  States  to  see  that 
its  decree  was  carried  out.  When  the  allied  nations  lifted  the 
siege  of  Peking,  only  those  sent  troops  who  happened  to  have 
them  in  Asia.  .  .  .  The  United  States  alone  is  amply  able  to 
protect  all  foreign  interests  in  Mexico  with  her  own  forces. 
The  question  of  how  and  in  what  measure  the  force  of  the 
league  shall  be  used  is,  after  all,  a  practical  one  to  be  decided  at 
the  time.  The  only  important  thing  is  to  have  each  nation  pre- 
pared to  use  its  force  to  the  utmost  if  necessary. 


INTERNATIONAL  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE 
PEACE 1 

The  purpose  of  the  League  is  to  organize  the  world's 
strength  into  an  international  police  to  enforce  a  procedure 
with  respect  to  issues  likely  to  lead  to  war  which  will  pre- 
vent all  wars  but  those  which  nothing  can  prevent. 

The  procedure  to  be  enforced  is  the  submission  of  ques- 
tions of  a  legal  nature,  the  decision  of  which  must  be  guided 
by  rules  of  law,  to  an  international  court  for  its  judgment, 
and  the  submission  of  all  other  questions  to  an  impartial 
commission  to  hear  and  decide,  its  decision  to  take  the  form 
of  a  recommendation  of  compromise.  The  judgment  of  the 
legal  question  by  the  court  will  be  legally  and  in  honor  bind- 
ing on  the  parties.  That  is  implied  in  a  submission  to  a 
court.  The  recommendation  of  compromise,  however,  is  not 
in  law  or  in  honor  binding  unless  the  parties  accept  it.  The 
League  does  not  propose  to  enforce  either.  Some  time  if  the 
League  conies  into  successful  operation  it  may  be  thought 
well  to  enforce  judgment  just  as  domestic  judgments  are 
enforced.  The  difficulty,  however,  that  even  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  has  in  enforcing  its  judgments 
against  sovereign  states  may  give  pause  in  taking  that  step. 

1  By  William  Howard  Taft,  President  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace. 
From  an  article  in  "The  Nation's  Business,"  published  by  the  United  States 
Chamber  of  Commerce. 


218  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

The  enforcement  and  recommendations  of  compromise  pre- 
sents a  still  more  serious  problem.  Nations  may  well  hesi- 
tate to  submit  questions  of  policy  and  vital  interests  to  the 
unlimited  discretion  of  arbitrators,  unguided  by  settled  prin- 
ciples of  law,  for  their  final  decision,  and  its  enforcement  by 
the  world  police. 

/  Practically  if  we  enforce  the  procedure  of  the  League,  we 
shall  take  a  step  which  will  rid  us  of  most  wars.  If  every 
issue  between  nations  is  forced  to  arbitration  and  judgment 
or  recommendation  of  compromise,  it  will  compel  delibera- 
tion by  those  who  think  of  war,  it  will  enable  the  quarreling 
peoples  to  understand  what  it  is  they  are  to  fight  about,  and 
what  the  attitude  of  their  opponents  is.  The  decision  of  im- 
partial tribunals  can  not  but  have  great  influence,  and  will 
form  the  public  opinion  of  the  world.  The  period  of  delay 
itself  will  abate  heat  and  induce  calmer  views.  It  is  the  suc- 
cessful practice  of  arbitration  that  leads  to  its  adoption.  .  .  X 

To  make  arbitration  useful,  the  state  of  mind  of  nations 
in  regard  to  arbitration  should  be  that  of  the  strict  and  ortho- 
dox Puritans,  that  one  must  be  willing  to  be  damned  if  he 
would  be  saved.  Practice  in  arbitrations  produces  this  state 
of  mind  and  this  confidence  in  the  method,  the  League  en- 
forces this  practice,  the  educational  effect  of  which  upon  na- 
tions in  showing  the  possibility  of  such  peaceful  settlement 
of  disputes  will  be  invaluable.  The  procedure  will  become  as 
of  course  and  the  habit  of  such  settlement  will  be  formed. 

But  the  Pacifist  asks  why  use  force  at  all.  Why  is  not 
a  general  agreement  by  all  the  world  to  arbitrate  enough? 
The  belligerent  nations  will  not  regard  mere  promises  an 
adequate  guaranty.  They  will  insist  on  adding  as  a  sanction 
the  fear  of  international  police.  Every  domestic  community, 
however  law-abiding  its  citizens,  provides  a  police  force  to 
suppress  disturbers  of  the  peace.  Many  people  would  never 
create  disturbances,  but  others  would  do  so,  unless  they  knew 
that  police  representing  the  full  power  of  all  for  the  common 
good  would  restrain  them. 

The  potential  existence  of  a  police  force  of  such  over- 
whelming nature  as  the  united  armies  and  navies  of  the 
world  would  furnish,  and  the  threat  of  destructive  isolation 
by  a  withdrawal  of  all  commerce  with  all  neighbors,  would, 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  219 

except  in  rare  cases,  accomplish  the  purpose  of  this  organiza- 
tion of  world  force  without  its  use. 

A  second  reason  why  the  agreement  to  contribute  to  an 
international  police  force  is  a  great  improvement  over  a  mere 
general  treaty  to  arbitrate  all  differences  between  all  nations 
is  that  where  no  force  is  behind  a  treaty  as  a  sanction,  no  one 
is  especially  interested  in  the  performance  of  the  treaty  ex- 
cept the  two  nations  who  have  a  difference. 

If  one  of  the  two  nations  fails  or  refuses  to  arbitrate  as 
agreed,  the  other  nations,  though  signatories  to  the  treaty, 
look  on  and  are  sorry,  but  they  have  no  responsibility  or 
motive  which  leads  them  to  exert  pressure  upon  the  recalci- 
trant nation.  In  our  League,  however,  every  member  in 
order  to  avoid  contributing  to  the  police,  is  deeply  interested 
to  secure  peaceful  compliance  with  the  procedure.  This 
motive  will  arouse  a  world  public  opinion,  having  an  ever 
operating  and  selfishly  active  influence.  The  diplomatic  pres- 
sure that  all  those  not  in  the  quarrel  will  thus  bring  to  bear 
on  those  who  are,  will  be  most  effective  to  prevent  hos- 
tilities. .  .  . 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  does  not  grow  out  of  rules  of  in- 
ternational law.  It  is  a  policy  to  be  pursued  in  our  own  in- 
terest and  to  be  maintained  by  us  by  force  if  questioned.  No 
nation  can  deny  our  legal  right  to  exclude  whom  we  will  from 
our  shores,  or  to  deny  to  whom  we  will  our  citizenship  un- 
less we  have  contracted  these  rignts  away.  If  it  is  said  that 
such  questions  might  nevertheless  be  held  by  the  Inter- 
national Court  to  be  of  a  legal  nature,  they  are  so  clearly  not 
in  that  category  that  a  specific  provision  defining  them  as 
non-justiciable  issues  could,  doubtless  with  the  consent  of 
all  the  powers,  be  inserted  in  the  Treaty.  If  therefore  we  do 
not  accept  the  recommendation  of  compromise,  on  the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine  or  our  Immigration  policy,  honor  will  not  re- 
quire us  to  acquiesce  in  it.  Thus  we  shall  be  no  worse  off 
as  to  such  issues  than  if  we  had  not  entered  the  League. 
Neither  the  delay  nor  the  hearing  would  prejudice  us  because" 
we  are  now  under  treaty  obligation  with  most  of  the  world 
not  to  begin  hostilities  for  a  year  after  the  issue  arises,  and 
to  have  an  investigation  by  an  impartial  tribunal  meantime. 

The  League  instead  of  being  an  abandonment  of  the  Mon- 


220  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

roe  Doctrine  will  aid  in  its  maintenance  because  violations 
of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  beginning  witn  threatened  hostilities 
by  a  European  or  Asiatic  power  against  one  of  the  American 
Republics  would  be  halted  by  the  League  with  an  examina- 
tion of  the  ground  of  quarrel  by  a  court  or  commission. 

Then  it  is  said  that  the  League  is  unconstitutional  in  that 
it  will  turn  over  to  a  council  of  representatives  of  all  the 
world  power  to  plunge  us  into  war,  whereas  the  Constitution 
vests  Congress  alone  with  power  to  declare.  This  is  a  mis- 
conception. We  enter  into  the  treaty  through  the  treaty- 
making  power  of  the  President  and  the  Senate.  The  treaty 
binds  us  in  a  certain  event  to  contribute  our  share  to  a  world 
police  force  and  thus  help  to  restrain  or  suppress  the  begin- 
ning of  war  in  violation  of  the  terms  of  the  League.  Our 
nation  must  perform  this  obligation  in  the  way  enjoined  by 
the  Constitution.  That  is,  Congress  must  act  by  proper 
declaration,  furnish  the  force  and  authorize  the  Executive  to 
act.  The  course  is  exactly  the  same  in  a  national  promise 
to  pay  money  to  another  nation.  The  treaty-making  power 
makes  the  agreement,  and  when  the  time  for  performance 
arrives  Congress  must  make  the  appropriation.  In  either 
case  Congress  may  refuse  to  do  so  and  thus  break  the  obliga- 
tion which  honorably  binds  the  Government,  but  the  original 
agreement  is  not  therefore  unconstitutional. 

If  Congress  recognizes  the  binding  force  of  the  obliga- 
tions, Congress  must  still  determine  and  is  the  only  power 
which  can  determine  whether  the  event  has  occurred  which 
requires  the  United  States  to  furnish  its  quota  of  police. 
Therefore,  the  League  is  neither  unconstitutional  nor  does  it 
put  in  the  hands  of  a  council  of  foreign  nations  to  plunge 
us  into  hostilities  unless  Congress  decides  that  under  the 
League  the  time  has  arrived  for  us  to  take  action. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  221 

OPPOSITION     TO     FORCE     FOR     AN     INTER- 
NATIONAL    PEACE    LEAGUE1 

All  international  associations  or  agreements  for  the  pro- 
motion of  the  world's  peace  have  hitherto  been  voluntary; 
that  is,  there  has  been  no  sanction  behind  the  decisions  of 
the  international  tribunals  or  behind  the  international  agree- 
ments. 

If  any  signatory  of  the  agreements  or  treaties,  or  any 
party  to  arbitration,  declined  to  be  bound  by  a  decision  of 
the  tribunal  which  had  been  created  or  by  the  provisions  of 
an  international  convention,  there  was  no  means  of  compel- 
ling such  signatory  to  abide  by  them,  a  fact  which  has  been 
most  dismally  demonstrated  since  this  war  began. 

The  chief  practical  result  of  international  associations  for 
the  promotion  of  peace  has  taken  the  form  of  arrangements 
for  the  arbitration  of  disputed  questions.  The  subjects  of 
these  arbitrations  have  been  limited  and  the  submission  of 
the  nations  to  the  international  tribunals  and  their  decisions 
has  been  purely  voluntary.  Much  good  has  been  obtained  by 
voluntary  arbitration.  Many  minor  questions  which  a  hun- 
dred years  ago  led  to  reprisals,  and  sometimes  to  war,  have 
been  removed  from  the  region  of  armed  hostilities  and 
brought  within  the  range  of  peaceable  settlement.  Volun- 
tary arbitrations,  which  have  gone  on  in  steadily  increasing 
number  and  in  the  promotion  of  which  the  United  States  has 
played  a  large,  creditable,  and  influential  part,  have  now 
reached,  as  they  were  certain  to  do,  their  natural  limits;  that 
is,  they  have  been  made  to  cover  in  practice  all  the  questions 
which  can  at  present  be  covered  by  voluntary  arbitration. 
The  efforts  which  have  been  made  to  carry  voluntary  arbitra- 
tion beyond  its  proper  sphere — like  our  recent  treaties  in- 
volving a  year's  delay  and  attempting  to  deal  with  the  vital 
interests  of  nations — are  useless  but  by  no  means  harmless. 
They  are  distinctly  mischievous,  because  in  time  of  stress 
and  peril  no  nation  would  regard  them,  and  a  treaty  which 

1  By  Henry  Cabot  Lodge,  Head  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations.  From  a  speech  delivered  in  the  Senate,  February  i,  1917. 


222  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

can  not  be  or  will  not  be  scrupulously  fulfilled,  is  infinitely 
worse  than  no  treaty  at  all.  No  greater  harm  can  be  done 
to  the  cause  of  peace  between  the  nations  than  to  make 
treaties  which  will  not  be  under  all  conditions  scrupulously 
observed.  The  disregard  of  treaties  is  a  most  prolific  cause 
of  war.  Nothing  has  done  more  to  envenom  feeling  in  the 
present  war  or  to  prolong  it  than  the  disregard  of  the  treaty 
guaranteeing  the  neutrality  of  Belgium  and  the  further  dis- 
regard of  the  Hague  conventions,  for  this  has  implanted  in 
the  minds  of  men  the  belief  that  treaties  bring  no  settlement 
and  are  not  worth  the  paper  upon  which  they  are  written; 
that  the  only  security  of  peace  is  to  be  found  in  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  enemy  and  in  placing  an  opponent  in  a  physical 
condition  where  he  is  unable  to  renew  war,  because  there  is 
no  assurance  of  safety  in  a  duly  ratified  treaty. 

If,  then,  voluntary  arbitration  and  voluntary  agreements, 
by  convention  or  otherwise,  without  any  sanction,  have 
reached  their  limits,  what  is  the  next  step?  There  is  only 
one  possible  advance,  and  that  is  to  put  a  sanction  behind  the 
decision  of  an  international  tribunal  or  behind  an  agreement 
of  the  nations;  in  other  words,  to  create  a  power  to  enforce 
the  decree  of  the  international  courts  or  the  provisions  of 
the  international  agreements.  There  is  no  other  solution. 

I  have  given  a  great  deal  of  thought  to  this  question  and 
I  admit  that  at  first  it  seemed  to  me  that  it  might  be  possible 
to  put  force  behind  the  world's  peace.  The  peace  and  order 
of  towns  and  cities,  of  states  and  nations,  are  all  maintained 
by  force.  The  force  may  not  be  displayed — usually  there  is 
no  necessity  for  doing  so — but  order  exists  in  our  towns,  in 
our  cities,  in  our  states,  and  in  our  Nation,  and  the  decrees 
of  our  courts  are  enforced  solely  because  of  the  existence  of 
overwhelming  force  behind  them.  It  is  known  that  behind 
the  decrees  of  the  courts  of  the  United  States  there  is  an 
irresistible  force.  If  the  peace  of  the  world  is  to  be  main- 
tained as  the  peace  of  a  city  or  the  internal  peace  of  a  nation 
is  maintained,  it  must  be  maintained  in  the  same  way — by 
force.  To  make  an  agreement  among  the  nations  for  the 
maintenance  of  peace  and  leave  it  to  each  nation  to  decide 
whether  its  force  should  be  used  in  a  given  case  to  prevent 
war  between  two  or  more  other  nations  of  the  world,  does 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  223 

not  advance  us  at  all;  we  are  still  under  the  voluntary  system. 
There  is  no  escape  from  the  conclusion  that  if  we  are  to  go 
beyond  purely  voluntary  arbitration  and  purely  voluntary 
agreements,  actual  international  force  must  be  placed  behind 
the  decisions  or  the  agreements.  There  is  no  halfway  house 
to  stop  at.  The  system  must  be  either  voluntary  or  there 
must  be  force  behind  the  agreement  or  the  decision.  It 
makes  no  difference  whether  that  force  is  expressed  by 
armies  and  navies,  or  by  economic  coercion,  as  suggested  by 
Sir  Frederick  Pollock.  It  is  always  force,  and  it  is  of  little 
consequence  whether  the  recalcitrant  nation  is  brought  to 
obedience  by  armed  men  arid  all  the  circumstance  of  war,  or 
by  commercial  ruin,  popular  suffering  and,  perhaps,  starva- 
tion, inflicted  by  the  major  force  of  mankind  under  the  direc- 
tion of  the  League  for  Peace.  It  is  ever  and  always  force.  . .  . 

I  know  well  the  question  which  can  be  put  to  me,  and 
probably  will  be  put  to  me  here  and  elsewhere:  "Are  you, 
then,  unwilling  to  use  the  power  and  influence  of  the  United 
States  for  the  promotion  of  the  permanent  peace  of  the 
world?"  Not  at  all;  there  is  nothing  that  I  have  so  much  at 
heart.  But  I  do  not,  in  my  eagerness  to  promote  the  perma- 
nent peace  of  the  world,  desire  to  involve  this  country  in  a 
scheme  which  may  create  a  situation  worse  than  that  which 
now  exists.  Sometimes  it  is  better  to  "bear  those  ills  which 
we  have  than  fly  to  others  that  we  know  not  of."  There 
are  measures  which  will  promote  peace  and  which  are  wholly 
practicable.  The  first  and  most  important  is  the  protection 
of  our  own  peace  against  foreign  attack.  That  can  only  be 
done  by  national  defense,  and  we  fyave  no  adequate  national 
defense  now.  We  have  no  means  of  repelling  the  invasion 
of  a  great  power  as  it  must  be  repelled,  and  such  weakness, 
combined  with  great  wealth,  constitutes  an  invitation  and  a 
temptation  to  war.  Against  that  danger  we  should  insure 
ourselves  by  adequate  national  defenses,  and  by  reducing  the 
danger  of  war  being  forced  upon  us  we  to  that  extent  pro- 
mote the  peace  of  mankind  and  we  likewise  put  ourselves 
in  a  position  where  our  influence  and  power  in  the  world  for 
the  maintenance  of  general  peace  would  be  enormously  in- 
creased. 

The  next  thing  to  which  we  ought  to  address  ourselves  on 


224  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

the  conclusion  of  this  war  should  be  the  rehabilitation  and  re- 
establishment  of  international  law.  International  law  repre- 
sents a  great  mass  of  customs  and  usages  which  have  become 
law  and^which  have  been  observed,  cited,  and  referred  to  by 
the  nations.  International  law  has  had  an  ever-increasing 
power  on  the  conduct  of  nations  toward  each  other.  The 
fact  that  it  has  been  violated  and  disregarded  in  many  in- 
stances during  the  present  conflict  is  no  reason  for  adopting 
the  counsel  of  despair  and  saying  that  it  is  of  no  value  and 
must  be  abandoned.  It  is  of  enormous  value  and  should  be 
restored  and  upbuilt  on  the  conclusion  of  this  war  with  all 
the  energy  and  influence  which  we  can  bring  to  bear.  We 
should  try  also,  within  the  necessary  and  natural  limits,  to 
extend  the  use  of  voluntary  arbitration,  so  far  as  possible, 
and  create,  as  we  can  well  do,  a  powerful  public  opinion  behind 
the  system.  We  can  also  do  much  in  urging  a  general  reduc- 
tion of  armaments  by  all  nations. 


GERMANY  AND  A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  * 

In  view  of  the  position  taken  later  on  in  this  article  it  is 
necessary  to  remind  the  reader  that  from  the  beginning  of 
the  great  war  the  writer  urged  America's  entry  into  it  to  de- 
feat Prussianism.  A  single  extract  from  a  statement  he  was 
privileged  to  make  to  The  New  York  Tribune  a  few  weeks 
after  the  war  began,  namely,  September  19,  1914,  will  serve  to 
establish  this: 

The  cruel  way  in  which  devoted  little  Belgium  is  being  trampled  to 
death  simply  because  it  lay  in  the  path  of  a  war-mad  Government  makes 
one's  blood  boil.  The  Germans,  dominated  by  a  ruthless  military  class, 
are  moving  back  the  practices  of  the  world.  ...  I  am  not  in  favor  of 
the  United  States  embroiling  itself  unnecessarily  in  European  controversies, 
but  a  state  of  affairs  exists  in  Europe  which,  if  the  love  of  decency  in 
international  conduct  and  of  fair  play  and  of  common  justice  is  in  our 
hearts,  must  lead  us  openly  to  espouse  the  cause  of  England  and  her 
allies.  .  .  .  Germany  is  not  and  has  not  for  years  been  amenable  to  reason. 
Only  force  will  avail.  She  must  be  beaten  to  her  knees  to  stem  the  flow 
of  barbarism,  to  free  the  German  masses  from  the  grip  of  the  bureaucracy 
and  ruthless  military  class,  and  to  arrest  militarism  itself.  .  .  .  The  cause 
of  militarism  will  continue  to  spread  over  the  world  until  the  bureaucracy 
and  military  class  of  Germany  are  overthrown. 

Holding  these  views  and  endeavoring,  in  his  feeble  way, 
by  pen  and  speech  to  advance  them  to  the  very  end  of  the 

1  By  Theodore  Marburg,  formerly  United  States  Minister  to  Belgium. 
In  New  York  Times,  November  24,  1918. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  225 

struggle,  the  writer  feels  the  more  at  liberty  to  make  an 
earnest  plea  npw  for  the  generous  admission  of  the  new 
Germany  to  full  membership  in  the  League  of  Nations.  A. 
principal  reason  for  this  position  is  that  all  the  leading  plans 
for  a  league  in  America  and  abroad  provide  for  disciplining  a 
recalcitrant  nation.  A  fundamental  provision  of  all  of  them 
is  that  they  will  make  war  in  common  on  the  nation  which 
attacks  a  fellow  signatory  without  previous  reference  of  the 
dispute  to  inquiry. 

To  omit  this  provision  is  to  fail, to  discourage  war.  De- 
velopment of  the  various  international  institutions  we  have 
now — Court  of  Arbitration,  Commission  of  Inquiry,  and 
Hague  Conference,  will,  it  is  true,  make  for  peace.  But  only 
general  agreement  to  use  force  against  a  nation  which  at- 
tempts to  go  to  war  without  previous  inquiry  into  the  dis- 
pute will  positively  discourage  war.  And  the  world  is  quite 
disposed  to  adopt  the  positive  measure  in  order  to  secure  that 
great  end. 

Now,  what  will  happen  if  a  single  one  of  the  great  powers 
is  left  out  of  a  league  which  is  based  upon  that  principle?  Is 
it  not  plain  that  the  nation  we  attempt  to  discipline  will  at 
once  fall  back  on  the  outsider  for  help,  and  that  world  catas- 
trophe will  again  ensue?  In  other  words,  a  sine  qua  non  of 
the  present  league  plans  is  that  the  circle  of  the  league  must 
embrace  an  overwhelming  preponderance  of  military  power, 
force  so  overpowering  that  no  nation  will  be  so  foolish  as  to 
refuse  the  reasonable  demand  for  an  inquiry. 

Cropping  up  here  and  there  is  a  disposition  to  treat  Ger- 
many as  an  outcast,  to  exclude  her  from  the  League  until  we 
ascertain  whether  the  change  of  spirit  be  real,  i.  e.,  to  put 
her  on  probation.  What  could  be  more  conducive  to  a  false 
start?  We  have  made  certain,  by  the  terms  of  the  armistice, 
that  she  cannot  make  another  such  wanton  assault  on  the 
peace  of  the  world  for  years  to  come.  We  are  forcing  her, 
most  properly,  by  money  loss  and  loss  of  territory,  to  ex- 
piate her  crimes.  And  the  German  people  themselves  are 
making  sure  that  the  "Potsdam  gang"  shall  not  again  ride 
their  necks.  Now  let  us,  for  our  own  sake,  act  as  Chris- 
tians. 

A  League  of  Nations  is  bound  to  be  supposited  on  good 


226  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

faith  and  on  the  ultimate  triumph  of  good  sense  and  reason 
among  the  many.  We  begin  with  faith  in  Great  Britain, 
France  and  the  United  States  as  our  cornerstone,  because  of 
kinship^kinship  either  of  ideals  and  political  institutions  or 
of  historic  background.  We  move  forward  to  faith  in  Italy 
and  Japan,  as  great  nations  which  have  a  strong  sense  of 
right.  We  include  without  question  the  progressive  sec- 
ondary powers,  such  as  Switzerland,  Holland  and  the  Scan- 
dinavian countries.  We  can  afford  to,  with  these  as  a  basis 
— in  fact,  we  must — found  the  League  also  on  faith  in  our 
former  enemies,  burned  white  by  the  fire  of  an  awful  ex- 
perience. 

Furthermore,  it  is  union,  not  dismemberment,  that  makes 
for  peace.  Witness  the  bloody  feuds  for  generations  along 
the  Scotch-English  border  until  these  two  lands  united.  Wit- 
ness the  centuries  of  strife  between  city,  states  and  prin- 
cipalities in  Italy  until  Cavour  came  to  still  it  all  by  creating  a 
united  Italy.  Witness  the  early  internal  condition  of  all  the 
European  lands  until  strong  central  government  appeared. 
If  Germany  and  Austria  are  to  be  genuinely  democratized — and 
what  reason  have  we  to  doubt  it? — why  not  encourage  con- 
tinued union,  under  a  system  of  local  self-government 
throughout  the  area  of  each  of  the  former  empires?  To 
encourage  dismemberment  of  these  states  with  a  view  to 
weakening  them  is  not  in  the  interest  of  future  peace. 

Germany's  practices  in  the  war  are  unspeakable.  Worse 
still  is  the  great  blood-guilt  of  bringing  on  the  war.  Some 
things  are  unforgivable.  Frankly,  her  deeds  fall  in  that  cate- 
gory. There  will  be  neither  forgetting  nor  forgiving  by  the 
generation  that  witnessed  them.  They  have  all  the  elements 
of  criminality.  Intent  was  there  and  the  attempt  was  not 
abandoned  through  repentance  but  only  when  a  full  accom- 
plishment of  the  deed  became  impossible.  But  the  spirit 
that  informs  the  criminal  law  as  practiced  by  the  modern 
world  is  prevention,  not  revenge.  And  this  is  the  spirit  which 
has  thus  far  motived  the  Allies. 

In  1870-71  Germany  was  not  invaded.  Not  a  German 
building  was  destroyed.  Yet  she  expected  of  prostrate 
France  five  thousand  million  francs  indemnity  and  tore  from 
her  two  fair  provinces.  Acting  on  that  principle  the  Allies 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  227 

would  have  added  to  their  present  demand  for  reparation  un- 
told millions  as  indemnity  for  the  actual  money  outlay  of  the 
war.  But,  moved  by  a  high  wisdom,  they  have  done  nothing 
of  the  kind.  Not  a  penny  of  actual  indemnity  has  been  de- 
manded. When  some  inferior  soul  cheats  us  we  do  not  boil 
over  in  anger.  We  feel  rather  a  great  pity  for  the  darkness 
in  which  it  moves.  If  we  feel  impelled  to  bring  the  culprit 
before  the  bar  of  justice  it  is  by  reason  of  no  other  motive 
than  public  interest. 

Just  punishment  makes  for  prevention,  and  this  punish- 
ment the  German  people  are  getting.  But  the  armistice  is 
untouched  by  the  soiling  ringers  of  either  revenge  or  greed. 
It  holds  before  it  the  single  aim  of  prevention,  and  the  truly 
great  men  who  are  guiding  the  destinies  of  triumphant  civili- 
zation today  see  that,  in  order  to  prevent  a  return  of  the 
awful  experience  we  have  just  passed  through,  we  must  have 
international  organization  from  which  no  great  state  can  be 
left  out. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS  x 

To  the  Editor  of  The  New  York  Times : 

The  troublesome  question  of  the  freedom  of  the  seas  will 
not  be  solved  until  the  more  important  question  of  a  League  of 
Nations  is  attended  to  by  the  statesmen  of  the  great  powers. 
The  freedom  of  the  seas  and  what  it  means  can  be  compre- 
hended only  in  the  light  of  the  rights  of  neutrals  on  the  high 
seas.  Freedom  of  the  seas  means  making  the  seas  free  for  neu- 
tral commerce  in  time  of  war.  This  principle,  when  applied  in  a 
concrete  way  by  American  statesmen  and  writers,  has  resulted  in 
their  advocating  the  exemption  from  capture  at  sea  of  private 
property,  contraband  excepted. 

But  it  is  very  easy  to  see  that  a  League  of  Nations  when 
using  a  sea  power  in  the  interests  of  the  community  of  nations 
ought  not  to  have  any  obstacles  placed  in  the  way  of  making 
sea  power  effective.  When  used  for  enforcing  the  principles  of 
international  government,  no  question  of  neutral  rights  can  be 

1  New  York  Times,  November  10,   1918. 


228  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

raised,  for  there  will  not  be  any  such  status  as  neutrality  which 
a  nation  will  be  allowed  to  assume.  This,  of  course,  does  not 
mean  that  the  sea  power  that  may  be  used  in  the  future  by  the 
League  of  Nations  will  be  used  in  any  such  way  as  Germany 
has  used  her  submarines.  The  old  rules  should  be  followed  in 
respect  to  saving  ocean  passengers  and  crews,  it  is  true.  But 
the  old  rules  of  blockade,  of  contraband,  of  continuous  voyage, 
will  be  displaced  entirely  by  the  new  rule  that  sea  power  backed 
by  the  community  of  nations  can  do  all  that  is  necessary  to 
check  the  warlike  operations  and  the  commerce  of  the  nation 
that  is  breaking  the  world's  peace. 

The  United  States  has  constantly  advocated  the  freedom  of 
the  seas,  because  its  interests  have  been  along  the  line  of  keeping 
out  of  war.  Its  interests  have  seemed  to  demand  a  policy  of 
neutrality,  and  it  has  resented  the  acts  of  any  nation  which  used 
its  naval  power  in  such  a  manner  as  to  injure  neutral  commerce. 
President  Roosevelt  in  his  annual  message  to  Congress  of  Dec. 
7,  1903,  recommended  that  that  body  authorize  the  Executive  to 
correspond  with  the  great  powers  with  the  view  of  securing 
general  recognition  of  the  freedom  of  the  seas  by  the  concrete 
method  of  exempting  private  property  at  sea  from  capture  with 
the  exception  of  contraband  of  war.  No  agreement  has  ever 
been  reached  on  the  proposition. 

The  experience  of  this  war,  however,  has  shown  that  it  is 
impossible  to  remain  neutral  when  a  war  is  carried  on  in  such  a 
large  scale.  Our  interest  in  the  future  would  seem  to  be  in  co- 
operating with  other  nations  to  prevent  as  far  as  possible  the 
outbreak  of  war.  If  this  co-operation  cannot  be  secured  we 
must  fall  back  on  our  former  proposition  and  again  champion 
with  all  our  might  the  freedom  of  the  seas  as  concretely  put 
forward  by  President  Roosevelt  and  by  earlier  leaders  of  the 
American  people.  We  shall  have  to  begin  once  more  with  the 
Declaration  of  Paris,  the  Declaration  of  London,  and  with  the 
more  recent  Code  of  Neutral  Rights,  which  has  been  prepared 
by  the  American  Institute  of  International  Law. 

EARL  WILLIS  CRECRAFT. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  229 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS  1 

The  Allies  have  accepted  all  of  the  American  terms  with  two 
exceptions.  They  have  extended  the  demand  for  reparation  to 
all  damages  inflicted  upon  civilians,  and  in  this  the  President 
rightfully  concurs.  They  have  questioned  the  clause  demanding 
the  freedom  of  the  seas,  but  this  the  President  cannot  withdraw 
without  repudiating  the  historic  policy  of  the  United  States 
from  Washington  to  Wilson  inclusive.  The  interference  of 
England  with  our  navigation  was  one  of  the  chief  causes  of  the 
Revolution,  as  the  Declaration  of  Independence  recites.  We 
fought  England  again  in  1812  in  defense  of  the  same  right,  but 
failed  to  get  it  assured  in  the  Treaty  of  Ghent.  Nor  during  the 
century  since  have  we  been  able  to  make  our  views  prevail  in 
the  world  at  large  and  today  there  seems  little  chance  of  it. 
England  and  France  have  always  opposed  the  American  doc- 
trine of  the  freedom  of  the  seas  and  they  still  do.  Prussia, 
which  was  the  first  of  the  foreign  powers  to  accept  it,  has  been 
in  the  Great  War  the  most  ruthless  violator  of  it  and  we  can- 
not trust  her  present  profession  of  it.  President  Wilson's  polite 
but  plain  spoken  remonstrances  at  the  beginning  of  the  war 
against  British  interference  with  the  freedom  of  trade  and 
navigation  without  even  the  pretense  of  a  blockade  had  no  ef- 
fect, and  since  our  sympathy  was  wholly  with  the  cause  of  the 
Allies  we  had  no  disposition  to  insist  upon  our  technical  rights. 
But  when  Germany  began  her  barbaric  warfare  upon  the  high 
seas  we  promptly  entered  the  conflict  and  brought  Germany  to 
her  knees.  It  was  our  third  war  for  the  freedom  of  the  seas, 
or  our  fourth  if  we  count  the  war  against  the  Barbary  States 
to  protect  the  shipping  of  the  Mediterranean. 

The  question  must  be  brought  before  the  peace  conference 
for  discussion,  but  it  is  evident  in  advance  that  the  opposition 
will  be  too  great  to  carry  the  idea  thru  in  its  original  form  as 
enunciated  by  Franklin,  Jefferson  and  Washington.  But  the 
President  proposes  a  different  solution: 

Second — Absolute  freedom  of  navigation  upon  the  seas,  outside  terri- 
torial waters,  alike  in  peace  and  in  war,  except  as  the  seas  may  be  closed 
in  whole  or  in  part  by  international  action  for  the  enforcement  of  inter- 
national covenants. 

1  Independent,    p.   196.    November  16,  1918. 


230  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

This  asserts  the  freedom  of  the  seas  but  not  as  an  inalien- 
able and  irreducible  natural  right.  It  recognizes  that  it  may  be 
necessary  to  limit  this  freedom,  but  declares  that  the  power  to 
do  it  shall  not  as  at  present  be  in  the  hands  of  whatever  nation 
happens  to  have  at  any  time  the  most  powerful  navy  but  be  ex- 
ercized solely  by  international  action  for  international  aims.  The 
League  of  Nations  shall  be  mistress  of  the  seas.  In  this  form 
the  doctrine  ought  to  find  acceptance  even  from  those  countries 
that  have  hitherto  opposed  it. 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE  AND  THE  PROGRAM 
OF  THE  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE  1 

There  have  been  some  arguments  against  the  platform  of 
the  League  to  Enforce  Peace.  One  of  the  most  frequently  ad- 
vanced of  these  arguments  is  that  the  carrying  out  of  the  plat- 
form of  the  League  would  violate  the  so-called  Monroe  Doc- 
trine. These  words,  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  have  been  used  to 
designate  or  to  conceal  such  a  variety  of  ideas  and  practices  that 
it  is  necessary  to  start  with  some  premise  as  to  what  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  may  be. 

If  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is,  as  Professor  Bingham  says,  an 
"obsolete  shibboleth,"  it  is  clear  that  the  relation  of  the  platform 
of  the  League  to  its  content  would  be  one  of  historical  and 
speculative  interest  only.  If  on  the  other  hand  it  is,  as  Mr. 
Petin  says,  the  substitution  by  the  United  States  of  an  "Amer- 
ican law  for  the  general  law  of  nations,"  the  relations  of  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  to  the  platform  of  the  League  would  be  a 
fundamental  question.  If  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  an  assertion 
of  the  "supremacy  of  the  United  States  in  the  Western  Hemi- 
phere"  or  "supremacy  in  political  leadership,"  there  would  also 
be  reason  for  careful  deliberation.  A  careful  investigation 
would,  however,  show  that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  not  a  part 
of  international  law. 

The  statement  of  the  Doctrine  has  varied.     Early  discussions 

1  By  George  Grafton  Wilson,  professor  of  international  law  at  Harvard 
University.  Read  at  the  first  National  Assemblage  of  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace  at  Washington  on  May  26,  1916,  under  the  general  topic 
"Practicability  of  the  League  Program."  Reprinted  from  the  World  Peace 
Foundation,  vol.  vi.  No.  4,  August,  1916. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  231 

in  the  cabinet  before  the  Doctrine  was  set  forth  in  Monroe's 
message  seem  to  have  been  as  lively  as  some  later  ones  upon 
the  same  subject.  Jefferson,  when  consulted  upon  the  advisabil- 
ity of  a  policy  which  would  not  "suffer  Europe  to  intermeddle 
with  cis- Atlantic  affairs,"  comparing  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence with  this  doctrine,  said:  "That  [the  Declaration] 
made  us  a  nation,  this  sets  our  compass  and  points  the  course 
which  we  are  to  steer  through  the  ocean  of  time  opening  on  us." 
In  the  early  days  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  the  aim  was  to  avoid 
further  European  interference  in  American  affairs.  Later,  par- 
ticularly from  the  days  of  President  Polk,  the  Doctrine  assumed 
a  more  positive  form.  Bismarck  is  reported  to  have  called  the 
Doctrine  a  piece  of  "international  impertinence."  In  1901  Pres- 
ident Roosevelt  in  his  annual  message  declared :  "The  Monroe 
Doctrine  should  be  the  cardinal  feature  of  the  foreign  policy  of 
all  the  nations  of  the  two  Americas,  as  it  is  of  the  United 
States,"  and  in  1904  that  "the  Monroe  Doctrine  may  force  the 
United  States,  however  reluctantly,  in  flagrant  cases  of  such 
wrongdoing  or  impotence  to  the  exercise  of  an  international 
police  power."  President  Taft  intimated  in  his  message  in  1909 
that  "the  apprehension  which  gave  rise  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
may  be  said  to  have  already  disappeared  and  neither  the  doc- 
trine as  it  exists  nor  any  other  doctrine  of  American  policy 
should  be  permitted  to  operate  for  the  perpetuation  of  irre- 
sponsible government,  the  escape  of  just  obligations  or  the  in- 
,sidious  allegation  of  dominating  ambitions  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States." 

The  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal  gave  rise  to  new 
problems.  The  rumor  that  foreigners  were  making  purchases 
of  land  about  Magdalena  Bay  in  Mexico  led  to  pronouncements 
in  the  United  States  Senate  in  1912,  that  the  United  States 
could  not  view  foreign  possession  of  this  or  any  such  harbor 
"without  grave  concern"  and  it  was  admitted  that  this  is  a 
"statement  of  policy,  allied  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine  of  course, 
but  not  necessarily  dependent  upon  it  or  growing  out  of  it." 

As  in  the  early  days  the  United  States  considered  it  within 
its  rights  to  assert  a  policy  defensive  in  its  nature  but  for  the 
preservation  of  its  well-being,  so  in  later  days  the  same  general 
policy  has  taken  differing  forms.  President  Wilson  early  in  his 
administration  endeavored  to  assure  the  Americas  of  his  desire 


232  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

for  the  cordial  cooperation  of  the  people  of  the  different  na- 
tions, and  a  little  later  he  asserted,  "we  are  friends  of  constitu- 
tional government  in  America;  we  are  more  than  its  friends,  we 
are  its  champions";  and,  in  the  same  message,  he  declared  that 
the  United  States  "must  regard  it  as  one  of  the  duties  of  friend- 
ship to  see  that  from  no  quarter  are  material  interests  made 
superior  to  human  liberty  and  national  opportunity."  President 
Roosevelt  had  in  1901  asserted  that  the  Doctrine  referred  not 
merely  to  European  but  to  "any  non-American  power."  This 
was  recognized  abroad,  as  Sir  Edward  Grey  said  in  1911  of  the 
United  States :  "They  had  a  policy  associated  with  the  name  of 
Monroe,  the  cardinal  point  of  which  was  that  no  European  or 
non-American  nation  should  acquire  fresh  territory  on  the  con- 
tinent of  America." 

In  December,  1913,  Mr.  Page,  the  American  Ambassador  to 
Great  Britain,  announced  a  late  form  of  policy,  saying:  "We 
have  now  developed  subtler  ways  than  taking  their  lands.  There 
is  the  taking  of  their  bonds,  for  instance.  Therefore,  the  im- 
portant proposition  is  that  no  sort  of  financial  control  can,  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  United  States,  be  obtained  over  these 
weaker  nations  which  would  in  effect  control  their  govern- 
ment." 

These  and  many  other  views  as  to  the  significance  of  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  show  the  varying  forms  in  which  the  United 
States  has  stated  its  opposition  to  the  permanent  occupation  of 
territory  or  acquisition  of  political  control  in  the  American 
hemisphere  by  non-American  powers.  It  has  seemed  necessary 
to  present  these  differing  ideas  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  to  show 
that  it  is  not  law  and  to  show  that,  as  a  manifestation  of  policy, 
it  is  not  set  forth  in  any  single  formula. 

As  single  nations  and  as  groups  of  nations  have  policies 
which  vary  in  different  parts  of  the  world,  and  as  the  conflict  of 
policies  rather  than  the  violation  of  established  law  is  the  fre- 
quent cause  of  international  differences,  it  is  evident  that,  if  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  cannot  provide  any  aid  in  case  of  con- 
flict of  policies,  its  function  will  be  comparatively  restricted. 
The  conflict  of  policy  would  rarely  take  a  form  which  would 
make  justiciable  methods  practicable  as  a  means  to  settlement. 

This  being  the  case,  reference  of  such  matters  would  be  to 
the  council  of  conciliation  provided  for  in  the  second  article  of 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  233 

the  platform  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace.    The  first  article 
provides  for  justiciable  questions  and  the  second  states: 

"All  other  questions  arising  between  the  signatories  and  not  settled 
by  negotiation  shall  be  submitted  to  a  council  of  conciliation  for  hearing, 
consideration  and  recommendation." 

A  dispute  in  regard  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine  or  involving  its 
principles,  whatever  they  may  be,  would  surely  be  included  in 
the  agreement  made  by  the  United  States  to  refer  disputes  "of 
every  nature  whatsoever"  to  an  international  commission  for  in- 
vestigation and  report.  This  principle  has  had  indorsement  by 
leaders  in  preceding  administrations  as  well  as  in  the  action  upon 
these  treaties  by  the  present  administration,  and  is  therefore  not 
to  be  regarded  as  embodying  partisan  policies.  The  United 
States  is  already  bound  to  act  as  regards  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
in  disputes  which  may  arise  with  most  states  in  a  fashion  in  ex- 
act accord  with  the  second  article  of  the  platform  of  the  League 
to  Enforce  Peace.  The  aim  of  the  League  is  secured  when  the 
question  which  negotiation  has  been  unable  to  settle  is  sub- 
mitted "for  hearing,  consideration  and  recommendation,"  and  it 
makes  little  difference  whether  the  body  to  which  it  is  submitted 
is  called  an  "international  commission"  or  a  "council  of  con- 
ciliation." 

If,  then,  the  United  States  and  thirty  or  more  nations  are  al- 
ready bound  to  the  principle  of  the  second  article  of  the 
League's  platform  so  far  as  the  Monroe  Doctrine  and  other 
matters  are  subjects  of  dispute,  there  would  seem  to  be  no  reason 
for  raising  the  question  of  the  practicability  of  that  part  of  the 
program  at  the  present  time.  Its  practicability  has  already  been 
formally  declared,  and,  as  embodied  in  treaty  provisions,  is  a 
part  of  the  law  of  the  land. 

Any  further  discussion  as  to  the  practicability  of  the  applica- 
tion of  the  League's  program  to  differences  arising  in  regard  to 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  would  involve  the  question  as  to  whether 
treaties  already  made  will  be  observed  when  put  to  the  test.  Put 
concretely  the  question  may  be,  will  the  United  States,  which  has 
made  treaties  with  certain  states  agreeing  to  submit  to  an  inter- 
national commission  disputes  "of  every  nature  whatsoever,"  find 
it  practicable  to  submit  a  dispute  arising  in  regard  to  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  to  such  a  commission,  or  will  the  United  States  disre- 
gard the  treaty,  and  did  the  United  States  so  intend  in  making 


234  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

the  treaty.  It  is  to  be  hoped,  and  it  must  be  believed,  that  these 
treaties  were  made  in  good  faith  and  that  the  parties  to  the 
treaties  intend  to  observe  their  provisions.  It  has  even  been  an- 
nounced-that  the  United  States  proposes  to  observe  in  principle 
toward  other  nations  not  parties  to  such  treaties  the  conduct 
prescribed  in  these  treaties.  These  treaties  are  called  treaties  for 
the  "Advancement  of  Peace"  and  declare  as  their  object  "to  con- 
tribute to  the  development  of  the  spirit  of  universal  peace"  or 
"to  serve  the  cause  of  general  peace."  Accordingly,  the  en- 
forcement of  these  treaties  is  regarded  by  these  states  as  at  least 
desirable  for  the  sake  of  peace. 

Under  the  general  practice  and  law  of  nations  the  violation 
of  a  treaty  may  be  a  just  cause  of  war.  If  this  be  so,  then  it  is 
particularly  essential  that  treaties  for  "the  development  of  the 
spirit  of  universal  peace"  be  kept.  It  would  seem  to  be  a  simple 
proposition  that  the  greater  the  risk  of  violation  of  a  treaty  the 
less  ready  a  state  will  be  to  violate  the  treaty.  This  principle 
generally  prevails,  though  at  times  states  disregard  all  risks.  If 
there  is  behind  a  treaty  the  compelling  force  of  the  fact  of  a 
signed  agreement  and  the  physical  resources  of  the  other  signa- 
tory only,  the  fact  of  the  agreement  seems  often,  even  in  modern 
times,  to  have  had  little  weight,  and  the  sole  deterrent  seems  to 
have  been  the  physical  power  which  might  be  felt  if  the  agree- 
ment was  not  observed.  This  has  given  rise  to  the  maxim  often 
quoted  that  "a  treaty  is  as  strong  as  the  force  behind  it."  There 
is  undoubtedly  some  truth  in  the  maxim.  The  program  of  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  proposes  to  adopt  what  is  beneficial 
in  the  maxim  and  to  put  behind  treaties  a  degree  of  force  which 
weak  state  might  by  themselves  be  unable  to  command.  If,  un- 
der the  provision  by  which  the  United  States  and  other  states 
have  agreed  to  refer  to  an  international  commission  all  differ- 
ences, there  is  a  reservation  as  regards  matters  affecting  the 
Monroe  Doctrine,  this  reservation  is  not  expressed  or  implied. 

In  brief,  the  United  States  would  be  obliged,  so  far  as  mem- 
bers of  the  League  were  concerned,  to  do  exactly  what  it  is  now 
obliged  by  treaty  agreement  to  do  with  most  of  the  states  of  the 
world;  and,  as  these  treaty  states  would  probably  be  the  mem- 
bers of  the  League,  the  conditions  would  be  changed  in  no  re- 
spect, except  that  behind  the  treaty  obligation  would  be  the  sane- 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  235 

tion  of  the  justified  use  of  economic  and  military  force  in  addi- 
tion to  other  sanctions. 

Further,  it  may  be  said  if,  when  in  dispute,  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine as  applied  by  the  United  States  is  not  a  policy  upon  which 
the  United  States  is  willing  to  await  hearing,  consideration  and 
recommendation,  then  the  United  States  has  not  acted  in  good 
faith  in  signing  these  recent  treaties;  and  it  may  also  be  said,  if 
the  American  policy  as  embodied  in  the  Monroe  Doctrine  will 
not  stand  the  test  of  investigation  and  consideration,  that  it  is 
time  for  the  United  States  to  be  determining  why  it  should 
longer  give  to  the  Doctrine  its  support. 

As  the  plan  of  the  League  for  submission  of  controversies 
such  as  might  arise  over  the  Monroe  Doctrine  has,  on  the  initia- 
tive of  the  United  States,  already  been  embodied  in  treaties 
with  a  greater  part  of  the  states  of  the  world,  such  a  plan  cannot 
be  regarded  as  impracticable  without  condemnation  of  the  judg- 
ment of  those  who  are  in  control  of  the  affairs  of  the  world, 
and  this  judgment  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  having  the 
well-being  of  the  world  in  view,  does  not  criticize  and  condemn, 
but  supports  and  commends. 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE  AND  A  LEAGUE  OF 
NATIONS  1 

The  declaration  of  United  States  policy  associated  with  the 
name  of  President  Monroe,  but  really  due  to  John  Quincy 
Adams,  and  in  some  measure  also  to  the  suggestions  of  George 
Canning  (then  British  Foreign  Secretary),  was  originally  de- 
livered as  announcing  a  restriction  or  limitation  which  America 
proposed  to  place  on  her  own  action.  She  would  not  interfere 
in  the  wars  and  alliances  of  the  Old  World  and  she  expected 
that  in  return  the  states  of  the  Old  World  would  not  interfere 
with  the  affairs  of  the  Western  Hemisphere.  If  they  tried  to 
introduce  their  political  system  into  the  New  World  they  must 
expect  her  opposition.  This  declaration  was  aimed  at  the  so- 
called  Holy  Alliance  of  Austria,  Russia,  and  Prussia,  which, 
having  pledged  itself  to  maintain  autocratic  government  in  the 
European  continent,  was  contemplating  interference  in  South 
America  against  the  insurgent  colonies  of  Spain.  Another  part 

1  By  Viscount  Bryce.     Nation.      105:659.     December  13,   1917. 


236  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

of  Monroe's  declaration  which  referred  to  territorial  aggression 
by  European  powers  was  apparently  meant  as  a  warning  to 
Russia,  which  had  advanced  large  territorial  claims  in  the  far 
Northwest. 

The  danger  that  any  European  power  would  try  to  found  a 
new  dominion  in  the  Western  Hemisphere  has  latterly  seemed 
too  remote  to  be  worth  regarding,  but  what  we  have  recently 
learned  of  the  far-reaching  plans  and  hopes  of  the  German 
Government  makes  it  pretty  clear  that  if  they  had  come  vic- 
torious out  of  this  war,  with  a  navy  able  to  command  the  At- 
lantic, they  would  have  endeavored  to  set  up  a  dependent  German 
state,  or  perhaps  a  province  of  the  German  Empire,  in  southern 
Brazil.  This  is  a  region  of  superb  natural  resources  containing  a 
very  large  population  sprung  from  Germany,  and  still  speaking 
German,  though  there  is  not  the  slightest  reason  to  suppose  that 
they  desired  to  exchange  their  present  freedom  for  the  rule  of 
the  Prussian  officer  and  the  Prussian  bureaucraft 

The  United  States,  which  would  then  have  had  to  come  to 
the  rescue  of  Brazil,  has  fortunately  already  thrown  herself 
into  the  conflict  for  justice,  liberty,  and  the  rights  of  the  smaller 
peoples.  Monroe's  policy,  which  was  also  Washington's,  of 
holding  aloof  from  European  complications  was  long  main- 
tained, and  wisely  maintained,  by  America,  but  the  current  of 
events  has  been  too  strong  to  make  it  possible  to  stand  apart 
any  longer.  The  whole  world  has  now  become  one,  and  must 
remain  one  for  the  purposes  -of  politics.  No  great  nation  can 
stand  out. 

Thus  the  Monroe  Doctrine  in  its  old  form  may  seem  to  have 
disappeared;  for  the  counterpart  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Euro- 
pean Powers  from  interfering  with  the  freedom  of  American 
states  was  the  abstentation  of  America  from  interference  in 
European  affairs.  Yet  what  has  really  happened  may  turn  out 
to  be  not  a  supersession  of  the  Doctrine,  but  rather  an  exten- 
sion of  what  was  soundest  in  its  principle.  The  action  of  the 
German  Government  in  proclaiming  a  general  submarine  war- 
fare was  a  threat  to  which  no  self-respecting  nation  could  have 
submitted.  It  was  addressed  to  the  western  nations  as  well  as 
those  of  Europe.  It  showed  that  there  were  dangers  which  in- 
volved all  maritime  powers  alike  and  which  western  nations 
must  join  the  European  allies  in  combating.  The  unbridled  am- 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  237 

bition  and  the  aggressive  spirit  of  the  German  Government  are 
compelling  all  the  nations  which  love  peace  and  law  and  freedom 
to  come  together  to  secure  for  themselves  that  which  America, 
in  proclaiming  the  Monroe  Doctrine  against  the  Holy  Alliance, 
desired  to  secure  for  the  western  continent. 

There  is  need  to-day  for  a  League  of  Nations  which  will  en- 
deavor to  extend  its  protection  to  all  the  world  and  not  to  one 
continent  only.  In  any  such  combination  to  secure  justice  and 
tranquillity  based  upon  right,  the  presence  of  the  United  States 
would  be  invaluable  and  would  indeed  be  necessary  if  the  com- 
bination were  to  secure  those  blessings  for  the  world. 


LORD  LANSDOWNE  AND  THE  LEAGUE  OF 
NATIONS  x 

The  primary  condition,  if  there  is  to  be  any  chance  of  pro- 
viding an  effective  sanction  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  aggres- 
sive warfare,  is  a  measure  of  relative  disarmament  among  the 
nations  party  to  the  League.  I  have  noticed  that  this  condition 
has  been  overlooked  in  much  of  the  criticism  levelled  at  the 
principle  of  a  League  of  Nations.  It  is  not  realised  that  such  a 
League  should  be  a  substitute  for  the  doctrine  of  "Balance  of 
Power,"  the  favourite  phrase  of  diplomatists,  and  no  doubt  of 
importance  so  long  as  the  doctrine  of  force  prevails  in  the  set- 
tlement of  international  disputes.  The  result  in  Europe  was 
aptly  summarised  by  Mr.  Asquith.  "Such  a  state  of  interna- 
tional relationship  without  any  solid  foundation,  ethical  or  polit- 
ical, was  bound,  by  its  very  stability  to  stimulate  naval  and  mil- 
itary activity.  No  one  felt  secure."  An  effective  sanction  im- 
plies the  possibility  of  an  ultimate  resort  to  force,  and  the  arma- 
ment of  each  member  of  the  League  should  not  be  so  constituted 
as  to  menace  the  power  of  the  whole  co-partnership,  or  to  neces- 
sitate the  maintenance,  or  use,  of  an  unnecessary  large  co-part- 
nership force.  Moreover,  if  countries  accept  the  burden  of 
maintaining  armaments  at  their  present  level,  it  would  be  con- 
trary to  human  experience  to  hope,  that  they  would  be  anxious 
to  abstain  from  the  use  of  the  costly  machinery.  There  is  a 

1  By  Lord  Parmoor.     Contemporary  Review,     p.   10.     January,  1918. 


238  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

further  reason  which  tells  in  favour  of  an  agreement  for  a 
relative  all-around  measure  of  disarmament  at  the  present  time. 
Whatever  else  may  be  the  effect  of  the  present  war,  it  will  cer- 
tainly result  in  a  period  of  financial  exhaustion.  The  re-estab- 
lishment of  normal  conditions  will  require  the  use  of  all  avail- 
able capital  for  industrial  purposes.  The  Chancellor  of  the  Ex- 
chequer has  thought  it  necessary  to  write  a  letter  to  the  Press 
on  the  security  of  the  National  Debt,  a  letter  which  would  prob- 
ably not  have  escaped  the  Censorship  if  written  by  a  private 
individual.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  write  a  letter  to  emphasise 
so  patent  a  truism  as  that  either  the  repudiation  of  the  National 
Debt,  or  the  compulsory  reduction  in  the  rate  of  interest,  would 
mean  a  disastrous  interference  with  those  principles  of  security 
and  honesty  absolutely  essential  to  the  maintenance  of  industrial 
progress.  There  is,  however,  an  alternative  at  hand,  which 
should  give  greater  assurance,  than  a  letter  of  an  individual  who 
happens  to  be  a  member  of  the  Government  for  the  time  being. 
An  agreement  for  the  relative  reduction  of  armaments  would 
lessen  the  enormous  sums  now  being  spent  on  the  costly  plant 
which  modern  warfare  requires,  and  tend  to  redirect  science  into 
the  more  beneficient  lines  of  a  research  tending  to  promote,  not 
human  destruction,  but  fresh  discovery  in  alleviation  of  human 
suffering  and  in  mitigation  of  human  poverty. 

The  Papal  Note,  to  which  reference  is  made  in  the  letter, 
uses  the  phrase  "the  establishment  of  arbitration."  Probably 
this  phrase  is  not  used  in  any  technical  sense.  There  are  some 
questions  for  which  arbitration  is  applicable,  and  during  the  last 
century  no  fewer  than  471  cases  of  international  disputes  were 
settled  by  arbitration  methods.  It  is,  however,  of  importance  to 
realise  that,  if  a  League  of  Nations  is  to  be  a  permanent  suc- 
cess, a  sufficiently  strong  international  tribunal  cannot  be  con- 
stituted on  the  arbitration  principle.  The  weakness  of  arbitra- 
tion is  that  the  so-called  Arbitration  Court  is  not  really  an  im- 
partial body,  but  consists  of  advocates  on  either  side,  with 
selected  umpire  or  umpires.  The  result  is  that  the  decision 
generally  depends  not  on  the  judgment  of  the  tribunal,  but  on 
that  of  the  individual  or  individuals,  who  act  as  umpire  or  um- 
pires. Consequently  the  authority  is  of  a  limited  character,  and 
the  decisions  do  not  carry  sufficient  weight  to  build  up  a  body  of 
accepted  precedent.  A  League  of  Nations  requires  a  permanent 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  239 

international  Court,  judicial  in  character,  and  with  that  atmos- 
phere of  trained  impartiality  which  is  the  distinguishing  feature 
of  a  well-constituted  tribunal.  This  tribunal  should  be  com- 
posed of  the  highest  available  judicial  ability,  such  as  would  be 
likely  to  ensure  a  loyal  acceptance  of  its  decisions.  A  Court  so 
constituted  would  be  competent  to  decide  all  judiciable  ques- 
tions, such  as  the  interpretation  of  treaties,  and  questions  ca- 
pable of  judicial  treatment.  In  comparatively  modern  times, 
Courts  of  great  authority  have  been  constituted  with  the  best 
possible  results,  not  international  in  character,  but  exercising 
jurisdiction  over  independently  constituted  subject  tribunals. 
Striking  illustrations  may  be  found  in  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  and  in  the  Judicial  Committee  of 
the  Privy  Council.  It  would  be  a  fitting  testimony  to  the  law- 
abiding  instincts  of  the  two  Anglo-Saxon  communities,  if,  start- 
ing from  the  experience  which  they  have  already  gained,  they 
would  co-operate  in  suggesting  the  framework  on  which  an  in- 
ternational tribunal  of  sufficient  weight  and  authority  might  be 
constructed.  There  are  questions  other  than  justiciable  which 
should  be  referred  to  a  council  of  conciliation;  but  space  does 
not  enable  me  to  follow  further  this  branch  of  the  subject. 

It  would  be  useless  to  attempt  to  form  a  League  of  Nations, 
unless  the  orders  made  by  the  International  Court  are  enforce- 
able by  adequate  sanction.  A  Court,  whose  orders  could  not  be 
enforced,  would  lose  its  authority  and  sink  into  insignificance. 
The  difficulty  of  providing  a  sanction  has  been  recognized  from 
the  time  of  Grotius,  who  lived  through  a  period  of  almost  con- 
tinuous devastating  warfare,  and  realised  that  strong  human 
passions  could  not  be  governed  without  an  appeal  to  force  as  the 
ultimate  resort.  It  probably  would  not  be  necessary  to  resort 
often  to  such  a  sanction;  but  this  would  largely  depend  on  the 
prestige  and  authority  of  the  tribunal,  and  the  extent  to  which 
it  could  demand  a  loyal  acceptance  of  its  decisions.  Two  meth- 
ods of  sanction  have  been  suggested — the  sanction  of  industrial 
boycott,  and  the  sanction  of  armed  force.  There  is  no  reason 
why  these  two  forms  should  not  be  applied  with  cumulative 
effect;  but  I  agree  with  what  was  said  by  Mr.  Asquith  in  an 
interview  in  which  he  referred  to  an  international  authority: 
"That  the  rule  of  its  authority  must  be  supported  in  case  of  need 
by  the  strength  of  all,  that  is,  in  the  last  resort,  by  armed  force." 


24o  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

This  implies,  that,  in  the  event  of  disobedience  to  the  orders  of 
the  International  Court,  it  might  become  necessary  to  use  all  the 
force  of  the  League  against  the  peccant  nationality.  The  jus- 
tification is  that,  in  the  face  of  such  a  combination,  the  outbreak 
of  war  is  improbable,  and  that,  if  it  does  break  out,  the  condi- 
tions would  be  unfavourable  to  the  aggressor,  and  that,  in  any 
event,  the  waste  and  ruin  would  be  less  terrible  than  in  a  world 
conflagration.  The  question  of  sanction  was  considered  in  the 
propositions  formulated  at  the  Conference  of  the  League  of 
Nations  to  enforce  peace  held  in  the  United  States  on  May  26, 
1916.  It  is  said  that  this  meeting  was  the  largest  and  most  dis- 
tinguished gathering  of  a  voluntary  character  that  ever  assem- 
bled in  the  city  of  Washington.  Mr.  Taft,  the  late  President  of 
the  United  States  was  elected  president  of  the  League,  and  we 
find  in  the  first  chapter  that  "right  thinking  men  in  every  land 
resolved  within  a  week  of  the  beginning  of  that  tragedy  (the 
present  war)  that  it  should  never  be  repeated  if  they  could  help 
it.  Given  this  attitude  of  mind  it  was  inevitable  that  some  sort 
of  creative  action  should  follow,  not  to  stop  nor  even  to  limit 
nor  control  the  war  then  raging,  for  all  recognised  the  futility 
of  any  such  attempt;  but  to  set  in  motion  the  machinery  that 
would  provide  something  to  take  the  place  of  slaughter  in  set- 
tling some,  if  not  all,  future  international  disputes."  The  prin- 
ciples formulated  contained  a  proposed  sanction  which  was  sub- 
sequently elaborated  in  the  following  form:  "The  signatory 
Power  shall  jointly  use,  forthwith,  their  economic  forces  against 
any  of  their  number  that  refuses  to  submit  any  question  which 
arises  to  an  international  judicial  tribunal  or  council  of  con- 
ciliation before  issuing  an  ultimatum  or  threatening  war.  They 
shall  follow  this  by  the  joint  use  of  their  military  forces  against 
that  nation  if  it  actually  proceeds  to  make  war  or  invades  an- 
other's territory."  I  have  been  doubtful  as  to  the  use  of  an 
economic  boycott;  but  the  proposal  that  it  should  be  used  as  a 
penalty  against  any  member  of  the  League,  which  refuses  to 
submit  the  dispute  to  an  international  judicial  tribunal,  or  coun- 
cil of  conciliation,  before  issuing  an  ultimatum,  or  threatening 
war,  appears  to  be  a  valuable  form  of  sanction  which  may  be 
adequate  without  actual  resort  to  military  force.  Certainly  the 
time  has  come  when  an  effort  should  be  made  to  formulate  the 
organisation  of  a  League  of  Nations  on  an  effective  basis.  To 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  241 

the  formidable  array  of  authority  which  Lord  Lansdowne 
quoted  in  favour  of  the  principle  of  a  League  of  Nations  two 
further  illustrations  may  be  added.  In  Switzerland  a  congress 
of  the  "Societe  Suisse  de  la  Paix"  was  held  which  declared  that 
a  durable  peace  ought  to  "establish  respect  for  treaties,  the  lib- 
erty of  nations  to  dispose  freely  of  themselves,  the  necessity  of 
compulsory  arbitration,  the  limitation  of  armaments,  the  aboli- 
tion of  secret  diplomacy,  and  an  agreement  between  nations  to 
constitute  a  Society  of  Nations."  Resolutions  were  further 
passed  calling  upon  the  Swiss  Government  to  summon  a  con- 
ference to  examine  the  conditions  under  which  Switzerland 
might  become  a  member  of  the  League  and  to  take  a  suitable 
opportunity  to  summon  an  International  Congress  to  determine 
the  fundamental  conditions  of  the  League.  In  France  there  has 
been  a  difference  of  opinion,  but  M.  Thomas,  formerly  French 
Minister  of  Munitions,  has  said,  "that  after  the  establishment 
of  the  right  of  France  to  Alsace-Lorraine,  the  most  important 
war  aim  is  the  establishment  of  a  Society  of  Nations."  I  think 
enough  has  been  said  to  show  the  importance  of  Lord  Lans- 
downe's  insistence  on  a  League  of  Nations  as  a  security  against 
the  recurrence  of  aggressive  warfare,  and  to  negative  the  ex- 
aggerated criticism  which  appears  to  have  been  really  aimed 
against  any  expression  of  independent  opinion.  When  the  Rep- 
resentation of  the  People  Bill  has  been  passed  into  law,  and  the 
House  of  Commons  is  renovated  by  contact  with  the  electorate, 
there  is  hope  of  a  freer  atmosphere  and  a  less  intolerant  spirit. 


A  PEACE  LEAGUE  BASED  ON  POPULATION1 

The  first  essential  of  a  successful  league  is  that  it  should 
be  constituted  in  such  a  manner  as  would  not  only  lead  to  the 
doing  of  real  justice  in  all  disputes,  but  would  also  convince 
each  separate  nation  that  that  nation  was  having  a  fair  chance 
in  the  activities  of  the  league.  Unless  real  justice  is  done 
and  unless  the  nations  are  satisfied  as  to  the  general  fairness 
of  the  league,  the  league  cannot  last  very  long.  It  is  bound 
to  fall  to  pieces. 

1  By  Arnold  Bennett,  New  York  Times  Current  History,  p.  355.  Au- 
gust, 1910. 


242  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Now  let  us  consider  a  little  what  the  league  at  work  will 
actually  consist  of.  It  will  consist,  not  of  heavenly  beings, 
seraphim,  cherubim,  saints,  and  high  philosophers  removed 
from  the  weakness  of  common  beings;  it  will  consist  of  per- 
sons very  like  you  and  me,  subject  to  our  failings,  our  weak- 
nesses, and  our  prejudices.  Half  of  the  members  of  the 
league,  when  they  assemble  in  the  morning,  will  be  wonder- 
ing whether  or  not  they  can  digest  their  breakfast  properly. 
More  than  half  of  them  will  be  open  to  flattery  or  to  threats, 
and  a  great  deal  more  than  half  of  them  will  have  axes  to 
grind. 

The  existence  of  the  league  will  not  change  human  nature, 
and  there  will  be  precisely  as  much  human  nature  within  the 
meetings  of  the  league  as  there  will  be  outside  those  meet- 
ings. The  meetings  will  be  remarkably  like  other  meet- 
ings of  committees  and  councils. 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  important  and  influential  nego- 
tiations will  go  on  informally  between  sundry  groups  of  the 
league  and  quite  apart  from  the  formal  meetings,  and  that  a 
large  proportion  of  the  members  will  attend  the  meetings 
with  their  minds  already  made  up  on  points  on  which  their 
minds  are  theoretically  supposed  to  be  quite  open.  In  other 
words,  the  real,  effective  proceedings  of  the  league  will  not, 
after  all,  be  quite  so  public  as  we  in  our  innocence  may  have 
imagined.  There  will  be  an  appreciable  amount  of  what  we 
call  lobbying;  that  is,  members  and  groups  of  members  will 
foregather  in  private  and  A  will  say  to  B,  "Will  you  vote  for 
my  project?"  and  B  will  reply  to  A,  "Yes,  I  will  vote  for  your 
project,  if  you  will  vote  for  mine,"  and  so  on  in  increasing 
degrees  of  complication. 

Well,  how  will  the  nations  of  the  world  agree  to  con- 
stitute the  personnel  of  the  league?  The  principle  adopted 
at  the  old  Hague  Conferences  was  beautifully  simple.  Forty- 
four  states  were  represented,  and  the  principle  was  one 
nation,  one  vote.  The  smaller  nations  insisted  upon  this 
principle  as  the  price  of  their  adhesion.  Their  argument  was 
that,  as  each  nation  was  sovereign  and  independent,  all 
nations  were  equal  and  must  be  equally  represented.  It  was 
a  charming  principle  and  might  conceivably  work  well  on  the 
planet  Mars,  but  it  could  never  work  well  on  earth,  because 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  243 

it  was  so  absurdly  contrary  to  all  earthly  notions  of  com- 
mon sense. 

Eight  great  powers  of  the  world — Great  Britain,  France, 
the  United  States,  Italy,  Japan,  Russia,  Germany,  and  Aus- 
tria-Hungary— comprise  about  three-quarters  of  the  total 
population  of  the  world,  and  under  the  one-nation-one-vote 
scheme  they  had  less  than  one-fifth  of  the  voting  power. 
Luxemburg  and  Denmark,  with  a  combined  population  less 
than  half  the  population  of  London,  could  swamp  the  vote 
of  the  Entire  British  Empire  with  its  area  of  13,000,000  square 
miles  and  its  population  of  over  400,000,000  souls.  The  thing 
would  obviously  be  ridiculous  in  any  plan  for  a  truly  practical 
and  workable  league. 

The  only  simple  alternative  seems  to  be  representation 
on  the  basis  of  population.  Democracy  is  the  politics  of  the 
future,  and  this  would  be  a  democratic  alternative.  It  would, 
however,  mean  that,  if  Luxemburg  had  one  representative, 
Britain  would  have  some  1,700  representatives,  which  is 
almost  as  ridiculous  as  the  one-nation-one-vote  scheme.  The 
personnel  of  the  league  must  be  kept  down  to  a  reasonable 
size,  hence  either  the  smallest  states  could  not  be  represented 
at  all,  or  several  of  them  would  have  to  combine  together  to 
send  a  single  representative. 

But  the  smaller  nations  are  not  of  urgent  importance. 
The  league  is  to  be  chiefly  concerned  with  the  prevention  of 
war.  The  smaller  nations  would  never  make  war,  only 
the  great  powers  could  make  war,  and  it  is  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  great  powers  that  matters  in  the  con- 
stitution of  the  league.  Hence  let  us  glance  at  a  list  of 
the  great  powers,  adding  Spain  to  them,  if  you  like,  as  Spain 
did  make  war  not  such  a  long  time  ago,  and  see  if  there  is 
anything  curious  about  it. 

There  is  just  this  that  is  curious  about  it,  namely,  that 
two  groups  dominate  it,  an  Anglo-Saxon  group  and  a  Teu- 
tonic group.  In  mentioning  a  Teutonic  group  at  all  I  am, 
of  course,  assuming  that  the  war  is  over  and  the  German 
militarists  smashed.  Outside  these  two  groups  we  observe 
Russia,  with  a  population  so  gigantic  that  it  could  look  after 
itself  in  the  league,  and  Spain,  which  would  itself  be  the  head 
of  an  important  group  comprising  Spanish  South  America, 


244  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

and  Japan,  which  is  Oriental  and  incalculable.  France  and 
Italy  are  left  out  in  the  cold.  They  would  probably  never 
combine-  together,  and,  even  if  they  did,  their  combined  forces 
would  not  equal  that  of  Germany  alone. 

The  idea  of  a  league  of  nations  has  had  some  success  in 
France,  but  only  very  modified  success.  Do  you  wonder 
why?  France,  like  Italy,  may  or  may  not  have  consciously 
realized  the  reason  for  her  coldness  toward  the  idea  of  a 
league,  but  the  reason  is  this:  On  a  population  basis  of  rep- 
resentation France  would  be  simply  nowhere  in  the  league; 
she  would  be  a  trifle  amid  tremendous  groups. 

There  is  no  suggestion  for  anything  so  silly  as  the  old 
balance  of  power  in  what  I  am  saying,  but  there  emphatically 
is  the  suggestion  of  the  inevitable  drawing  together  of  na- 
tions allied  alike  by  race  or  language,  or  by  both.  Undoubt- 
edly lobbying  would  occur  within  the  great  groups,  and  bar- 
gaining would  go  on,  as  to  which  no  hint  would  ever  appear 
in  the  official  proceedings  of  the  league.  France,  like  Italy, 
naturally  fears  this,  and  on  a  population  basis  of  representa- 
tion could  do  almost  nothing  to  counter  any  movements 
which  she  might  imagine  to  be  against  her  interests. 

France  counts  far  more  than  her  population  in  the  prog- 
ress of  the  world.  She  is  the  centre  of  civilization,  the  his- 
toric nursery  of  ideas,  the  admired  heroine  of  the  earth,  and 
a  league  of  nations  without  her  whole-souled  co-operation  is 
unthinkable;  hence  her  fears  must  be  dissipated,  they  must 
have  no  ground  to  stand  on  and  no  air  to  breathe. 

How  can  her  fears  be  dissipateed?  They  can  only  be  dis- 
sipated by  giving  her  appreciably  larger  representation  in 
the  league  than  she  is  strictly  entitled  to  on  a  basis  of  popu- 
lation; the  same  in  less  degree  with  Italy. 

I  am  fully  aware  that  my  proposal  is  a  very  delicate  one, 
and  will  arouse  many  objections;  nevertheless  I  regard  the 
proposal  as  the  sine  qua  non  of  a  successful  league  of  nations. 
Let  this  proposal  be  made,  and  the  idea  of  the  league  of  na- 
tions will  instantly  jump  forward.  The  proposal  involves 
difficulties,  but  these  difficulties  must  be  met.  It  involves 
sacrifices,  but  greater  sacrifices  than  these  will  have  to  be 
made  if  a  league  of  nations  is  to  be  and  is  to  work. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  245 


WILL  DEMOCRACY  MAKE  THE  WORLD  SAFE?  * 

During  the  past  century  the  great  democracies  have  been 
making  war,  threatening  war,  and  preparing  for  war,  much  of 
the  time  against  each  other.  Their  history  shows  clearly  enough 
that  if  their  neighbors  had  also  been  democratic  this  change 
alone  would  not  have  prevented  wars.  Nor  is  the  outlook  for 
the  future  encouraging.  Democratic  nations  are  still  willing  to 
fight  to  defend  their  national  interests  and  policies ;  they  de- 
mand their  due  share  of  over-sea  trade,  concessions  and  colonies 
— if  they  are  a  commercial  or  expansionist  people — no  less  in- 
sistently because  they  are  democratic.  But  the  interests  and 
policies  of  one  nation  conflict  with  those  of  another;  what  one 
democracy  regards  as  a  due  share  of  over-sea  trade,  concessions, 
and  colonies  is  an  undue  share  to  its  rival.  Each  democracy 
becomes  an  excited  partisan  of  its  own  view,  ready  to  back  it  by 
force  of  arms ;  and  the  natural  result  is,  as  it  always  has  been, 
wars  and  rumors  of  war.  There  are  enough  conflicts  in  na- 
tional policies  today  to  lead  to  a  dozen  future  conflicts,  even  if 
all  the  world  should  be  democratic.  There  is  Japan's  insistence 
upon  controlling  China;  our  own  Monroe  Doctrine,  when  inter- 
preted in  a  domineering  or  selfish  spirit ;  England's  Persian  Gulf 
Policy;  the  anti-oriental  policy  of  the  United  States  and  the 
British  self-governing  colonies;  and  the  expansionist  policy  of 
all  of  the  Balkan  states.  Unless  present  conditions  are  changed, 
the  democratic  nations  of  the  world,  with  their  conflicting  in- 
terests, could  not  maintain  world  peace,  for  the  next  century, 
even  if  they  wished  to  maintain  it.  History,  present  conditions, 
and  the  logic  of  the  situation  show  that  democracy  alone  will 
never  make  the  world  safe. 

In  fact,  democracy  alone, — at  least  our  familiar  nationalistic 
democracy,  for  we  need  not  consider  the  new  socialistic  Bol- 
shevism— however  much  we  value.it  and  however  fiercely  we  in- 
tend to  fight  for  it,  must  be  admitted  to  have  exerted,  up  to  the 
present  time,  a  relatively  small  influence  in  hastening  interna- 
tional peace.  Whatever  advance  has  been  made  in  limiting  the 

1  By  George  H.  Blakeslee.  In  the  Proceedings  of  the  American  Anti- 
quarian Society,  at  the  annual  meeting  held  in  Worcester,  Mass.,  October 
7,  1917- 


246  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

area  of  war  has  thus  far  in  history  been  accomplished  almost 
solely  by  another  means, — by  uniting  existing,  independent 
political  units  into  some  larger  group,  thus  bringing  peace  within 
continually  widening  areas.  The  independent  primitive  families 
became  tribes;  the  tribes,  city  states;  and  the  city  states,  the 
Roman  Empire.  After  the  fall  of  Rome,  the  practically  inde- 
pendent feudal  castles  gradually  became  feudal  duchies;  the 
duchies,  kingdoms;  and  finally  the  kingdoms,  the  nations  and 
the  empires  of  today.  Each  stage  has  brought  peace  to  the  pre- 
viously warring  units  after  they  have  once  been  united  in  the 
larger  organization. 

This  process  has  been  working  out  in  a  striking  way  in  the 
recent  past.  Not  a  long  time  ago,  as  we  count  time  in  history, 
Scotland  and  England  were  bitter  enemies:  Scotland,  Celtic, 
and  Presbyterian;  England,  Anglo-Saxon,  and  Episcopal.  For 
centuries  their  unending  border  warfare  lasted  on, — until  finally 
without  conquest  these  old  enemies  were  united,  and  co-operated 
as  parts  of  the  larger  British  nation.  The  States  of  Germany 
continually  fought  one  another  until  they  formed  a  union,  which 
they  later  cemented  by  mutual  consent  into  the  present  German 
Empire.  However  fiercely  the  Imperial  Government  may  now 
attack  other  nations,  there  is  peace  between  the  self-governing 
states  which  compose  this  new  federated  unit.  A  similar  de- 
velopment took  place  in  Italy.  Bitterly  and  constantly  the  little 
Italian  city  states  contended  against  each  other;  but  they  all 
finally  united,  in  large  part  by  voluntary  action,  to  form  the 
modern  kingdom  of  Italy,  and  thus  brought  peace  and  security 
to  Venice,  Florence,  Genoa,  Milan,  and  all  their  warring  neigh- 
bors within  the  bounds  of  the  Italian  peninsula. 

The  necessity  of  some  kind  of  union  among  independent 
states,  even  democratic  states,  if  they  are  to  establish  permanent 
peace,  is  shown  with  especial  clearness  by  our  own  early  history. 
Soon  after  the  coercive  hand  of  the  Revolutionary  War  was  re- 
laxed, and  our  thirteen  commonwealths  became  virtually  inde- 
pendent of  each  other,  it  took  them  only  a  short  half  dozen  years 
— though  they  were  non-militaristic  and  intensely  democratic — 
to  develop  the  same  kind  of  disputes  and  the  same  spirit  of 
mutual  suspicion  which  we  know  too  well  in  Europe.  New  York 
State  ordered  its  troops  to  the  Vermont  border  to  enforce  its 
boundary  claims,  while  partisans  burned  houses  and  murdered 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  247 

farmers  in  this  contested  territory.  Connecticut  showed  a  gen- 
uine war  spirit  against  Pennsylvania  because  of  the  inhuman 
treatment  which  the  Pennsylvania  military  authorities  inflicted 
upon  the  Connecticut  settlers  in  the  Wyoming  Valley.  Tariff 
squabbles  of  much  bitterness  arose  between  New  Jersey  and 
Connecticut,  on  the  one  hand,  and  New  York  on  the  other.  Our 
democracies  were  rapidly  going  the  way  of  the  military  au- 
tocracies of  the  old  world;  within  these  few  years  five  of  them 
went  dangerously  on  the  far  road  which  led  to  inter-state  war. 
But  they  realized  their  danger,  called  an  inter-state  convention 
and,  after  a  long  discussion,  adopted  the  present  federal  con- 
stitution, which  the  convention  had  drawn  up.  It  was  not  their 
democracy  but  their  federation  which  saved  them. 

If  the  world's  democracies  are  to  keep  the  peace,  they  too 
must  follow  this  historic  process  and  form  some  greater  political 
organization;  without  relinquishing  their  sovereignty  they  must 
league  themselves  together  to  achieve  certain  common  pur- 
poses. Such  a  union  of  sovereign  or  partly  sovereign  states, 
that  is,  a  federation,  is  an  American  conception.  Forty  years 
ago  John  Fiske  pointed  out  that  the  idea  of  federation  was 
America's  greatest  single  contribution  to  civilization,  and  de- 
clared that  it  was  "one  of  the  most  important  in  the  history  of 
mankind."  Then  he  added,  prophetically,  "the  principle  of  fed- 
eration .  .  .  broadly  stated  contains  within  itself  the  seeds  of 
permanent  peace  between  nations."  It  is  by  federation  that  our 
own  self-governing,  partly  sovereign,  democratic  states — differ- 
ing in  size,  population,  laws,  customs,  interests,  and  each  with  its 
local  pride — succeed  in  maintaining  peace  and  harmony  through- 
out our  continental-wide  areas.  It  is  by  federation  that  the 
British  Commonwealths,  which  are  virtually  independent,  mak- 
ing even  their  own  tariffs,  their  own  immigration  laws,  and 
their  own  tests  of  citizenship,  find  security  and  the  means  of 
settling  in  common,  their  common  problems. 

The  nations  of  the  world  must  adopt  this  same  principle.  It 
is  not  enough  that  they  become  democratic;  they  must  also  fed- 
erate into  a  great  league  of  peace  to  protect  each  other  from 
aggression  and  to  provide  means  for  settling  international  dis- 
putes, and  agencies  for  composing  clashes  of  policy  and  of  in- 
terest. The  necessity  of  international  organization  has  fre- 
quently been  pointed  out  by  the  President,  and  at  no  time  more 


248  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

earnestly  than  in  his  notable  war  message,  when  he  held  up  as 
one  of  the  aims  of  the  United  States  the  creation  "of  such  a 
concert  of  free  peoples  as  shall  bring  peace  and  security  to  all 
nations  affd  make  the  world  itself  free." 

But  if  the  final  and  essential  factor  in  securing  permanent 
peace  is  a  concert  or  league  of  nations,  why  is  it  considered 
necessary  to  have  all  of  the  peoples  in  the  league  self-governing 
or  democratic?  Chiefly  for  the  reason  that  a  thoroughly  mil- 
itarized autocracy  by  its  very  nature  can  not  loyally  enter  into  a 
league  of  democracies  which  aims  to  substitute  law,  reason,  and 
conciliation  for  military  force,  and  to  reduce  national  armaments 
to  their  lowest  limits  necessary  for  the  fulfillment  of  the  guar- 
antees of  the  league.  It  is  militarism  more  than  autocracy  which 
prevents  cordial  co-operation.  An  autocracy  which  is  not  mil- 
itaristic would  not  greatly  endanger  the  world's  peace;  auto- 
cratic China,  during  most  of  the  past  century  threatened  no 
country.  It  is  the  controlling  military  caste  and  the  controlling 
military  principle  in  a  great  state,  whatever  its  form  of  govern- 
ment, which  stand  in  the  way  of  membership  in  a  peaceful 
democratic  league.  For  militarism,  necessarily,  stands  for 
force  and  might — the  law  of  the  jungle — in  foreign  relations, 
and,  within  its  own  state,  for  the  supremacy  of  the  military  over 
the  civilian  element.  A  state  essentially  militarized  thus  repre- 
sents principles  which  are  directly  opposed  to  those  upon  which 
a  concert  or  league  of  free  nations  would  be  built. 

This  military  attitude  is  well  shown  by  the  action  of  the  Ger- 
man Government  during  the  past  few  decades.  It  has  consist- 
ently opposed  the  variou's  suggestions  which  have  been  made 
looking  towards  international  limitation  of  armament.  Before 
the  Hague  Congress  of  1907,  its  leaders  stated  that  it  would  not 
even  send  delegates  to  the  Hague,  if  the  subject  of  the  reduc- 
tion of  armament  was  to  be  so  much  as  mentioned.  It  is  Ger- 
many which  has  been  the  greatest  obstacle  to  the  Hague  idea, 
as  opposed  to  the  "blood  and  iron"  idea.  This  fact  was  rec- 
ognized in  the  two  conferences  of  1809  and  1907;  and  has  been 
further  illustrated  by  Germany's  attitude  towards  the  calling 
of  a  third  Conference.  Dr.  Henry  Van  Dyke  has  recently 
shown  that  all  of  his  efforts  as  United  States  Minister  at  the 
Hague  to  forward  the  assembling  of  a  third  Conference  were 
blocked  by  Germany.  This  opposition  is  only  to  be  expected;  a 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  249 

government  under  military  control  wishes  to  rely  upon  military 
force — or  the  fear  of  it — to  back  up  its  policy  in  dealing  with 
other  nations. 

But  the  mass  of  the  people  in  every  great  European  State, 
whether  its  government  is  under  military  control  or  not,  desire 
peace  as  a  permanent  basis  of  international  relations,  and  do  not 
believe  in  war  as  a  good  in  itself  or  as  a  policy  of  calculated 
aggression.  They  are,  however,  ready  to  fight,  if  necessary,  to 
defend  themselves  as  well  as  their  national  rights,  interests,  and 
policies.  The  majority  even  of  the  German  people  have  desired 
to  keep  the  peace :  this  is  clear  from  such  evidence  as  the  secret 
report  on  public  opinion  in  Germany  prepared  by  the  French 
Embassy  in  Berlin  in  1913,  and  published  in  the  French  Govern- 
ment Yellow  Book  in  1914;  by  the  testimony  of  Baron  Beyens, 
Belgian  Minister  to  Berlin  for  a  number  of  years  before  the 
war;  and  by  the  observations  of  Georges  Bourdon,  the  corre- 
spondent of  the  Paris  Figaro,  who  made  a  study  of  German 
sentiment  in  1913.  But  the  majority  of  the  German  people  did 
not  control  their  government.  Even  had  they  controlled  it  to 
the  extent  to  which  the  people  of  Great  Britain,  France,  and 
Italy  control  theirs,  there  would  have  been  likelihood  of  war  had 
no  international  machinery  been  devised  for  discussing  and  set- 
tling the  clashes  of  policy  between  Germany  and  other  Powers, 
and  thus  allaying  international  suspicion  and  fear,  and  obviating 
the  resulting  rival  military  preparedness. 

What  then  must  be  done  to  make  the  world  safe?  First,  the 
German  people  should  obtain  control  of  their  Imperial  govern- 
ment. This  change  would  naturally  do  away  with  the  insistence, 
by  Germany,  of  maintaining  military  force  as  the  sole  arbiter  in 
international  affairs.  Secondly,  the  treaty  of  peace  at  the  close 
of  the  present  war  should  be  just;  so  eminently  just  to  all 
peoples  that  the  German  democracy  will  be  willing  to  accept  it 
as  a  somewhat  permanent  international  settlement,  and  join  with 
the  other  democracies  in  safe-guarding  it.  In  such  a  settlement, 
"punitive  damages,  the  dismemberment  of  Empires,  and  ex- 
clusive economic  leagues,"  as  President  Wilson  has  well  pointed 
out,  must  have  no  place.  Thirdly,  a  league  or  concert  should  be 
formed  of  the  self-governing  peoples,  the  democracies  of  the 
world,  in  order  to  maintain  international  security,  justice,  and 
peace. 


250  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

History  proves,  however,  that  democracies — at  least  national- 
istic democracies — unless  leagued  together,  and  thus  restrained 
by  the  ties  which  bind  them  to  their  fellow  members,  will  in  the 
future  as  in  the  past,  be  carried  away,  at  times,  by  the  militaristic 
and  imperialistic  minorities,  which  exist  in  some  degree  in  every 
state — even  in  our  own — and  will  become  aggressive  and  un- 
scrupulous ;  unless  they  devise  methods,  with  force  behind  them, 
for  adjusting  their  conflicting  claims,  interests,  and  policies,  they 
will  occasionally,  as  has  happened  so  often  before, — even  when 
they  desire  to  maintain  peace — drift  helplessly  into  war,  each 
fighting  in  defense  of  what  it  regards  as  its  just  rights. 

The  fact  that  democracies  bring  peace  only  when  they  are 
leagued  or  federated  is  of  the  greatest  practical  importance  to 
the  United  States,  and  should  determine  our  future  interna- 
tional policy.  The  necessity  of  having  the  nations  of  the  world 
become  democracies  has  been  emphasized  by  the  President ;  but 
the  necessity  of  grouping  these  democracies  into  a  concert  or 
league  to  maintain  peace,  is  not  so  generally  appreciated.  Yet 
the  President — backed  by  such  men  as  Ex-President  Taft — has 
for  the  past  two  years  repeatedly  insisted  that  to  obtain  secure 
peace  the  democracies  must  form  a  league  of  nations,  "a  concert 
of  free  peoples,"  "a  partnership  of  democratic  nations." 

It  is  only  by  supporting  the  President  in  his  effort  to  lead 
our  own  and  the  other  free  peoples — including  a  freed  and  self- 
governing  Germany — into  a  definite  concert  of  states,  that  we 
may,  in  the  truest  sense,  win  the  war ;  that  we  may  secure  a  rea- 
sonable promise  of  obtaining  a  permanent  international  peace 
and  of  becoming  a  non-militaristic  world.  If  we  should  not 
succeed  in  forming  such  a  league,  no  matter  how  badly  our 
armies  may  defeat  the  German  troops,  no  matter  how  thor- 
oughly we  may  democratize  the  German  state,  we  shall  fail  to 
achieve  fully  our  great  ultimate  purpose  in  the  war.  For  democ- 
racy alone  will  never  make  the  world  safe. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  251 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  1 

President  Wilson's  New  York  address  is  remarkable  for  its 
emphasis  of  a  league  of  nations  as  the  "indispensable  instru- 
mentality" by  which  a  just  and  permanent  peace  can  be  guar- 
anteed. The  ground  plan  of  such  a  league  should  be  discussed 
and  agreed  upon  by  the  people  of  every  nation.  The  following 
considerations  appear  pertinent  and  valuable: 

1.  The  best  model  for  a  league  of  nations  is  the  American 
Union.     Under  our  Constitution  a  group  of  "free  and  indepen- 
dent  states,"   thirteen   at  first,   now   forty-eight,  have  kept   the 
peace  with  one  another  a  hundred  and  thirty  years   with  the 
exception  of  the  Civil  War.     That  war  was  not  attributed  to 
any  defect  in  our  federal    system.     No  political    arrangement 
that  human  intelligence  can  devise  will  be  an  absolute  guarantee 
against  war. 

2.  There  is  free  trade  throughout  our  nation.    No  state  can 
establish    commercial    barriers   or    secure    selfish    economic   ad- 
vantages.    Only  Congress  can  regulate  commerce  between  the 
states  and  with  foreign  countries. 

3.  Our   Constitution   gives   the   general   government   no   au- 
thority to  coerce  a  state,  but  delinquent  individuals  within  the 
states  may  be  coerced.     Said  Oliver  Ellsworth,  one  of  the  men 
that  framed  the  Constitution:     "The  Constitution  does  not  at- 
tempt to  coerce  sovereign  bodies,  states.     If  we  should  attempt 
to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Union  by  sending  an  armed  force 
against  a  delinquent  state,  it  would  involve  the  good  and  the 
bad,  the  innocent  and  the  guilty,  in  the  same  calamity."     The 
distinction  between  using  force  against  individuals,  which  is    a 
proper  police    function,    and   using   force    against   collectivities, 
which  is  war,  was  clearly  perceived  by  our  fathers.     They  acted 
on  the  principle  expressed  in  Burke's  f  amous  dictum :    "I  do  not 
know  how  to  draw  up  an  indictment  against  a  whole  people." 
This  distinction  is  supremely  important  in  the  solution  of  the 
problem  of  world  peace. 

4.  Our  Constitution  provides  a  Supreme  Court  to  pass  upon 
disputes  between  the  states,  but  it  makes  no  provision  of  force 

1By  Henry  W.  Pinkham.    Public,    p.    1338.    October  26,  1918. 


252  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

to  compel  a  state  to  accept  the  Court's  decision,  but  depends 
solely  on  public  opinion  as  a  sanction. 

5.  Thus  our  Union  is  a  league  of  peace  and  not  a  "league  to 
enforce  peace."  Our  federal  army  and  navy  have  never  been 
thought  of  as  instruments  for  possible  use  in  preventing  New 
York  from  making  war  on  Pennsylvania,  or  for  intervention  in 
case  Massachusetts  should  attempt  to  annex  Rhode  Island.  An 
armed  conflict  between  states  or  groups  of  states  in  our  Union 
is  well  nigh  unthinkable  and  is  not  a  concern  of  practical  states- 
manship. It  is  only  because  we  have  relations  with  foreign  na- 
tions that  an  armament  is  deemed  necessary  by  any  one.  But  in 
a  world  federation  there  will  be  no  foreign  nations  in  the  pres- 
ent sense,  that  is,  no  unlimited  sovereignties,  with  the  right  to 
make  war.  Hence  there  need  be  no  armies  and  navies,  since 
there  is  but  little  reason  to  fear  an  invasion  from  Mars.  Dis- 
armament, universal  and  complete,  is  the  natural  accompani- 
ment of  the  organization  of  a  world  league. 


CAN  MAN  ABOLISH  WAR?1 

Unless  the  league  of  nations  is  prepared  to  hold  down  by 
force,  for  an  indefinite  period,  Germany,  Austria,  Turkey,  and 
Bulgaria,  the  peace  of  the  world  would  always  be  at  the  mercy 
of  these  dissatisfied  countries.  I  can  perfectly  understand  the 
point  of  view  of  an  English  militarist  who  argues  that  there  is 
not  room  in  the  world  for  two  great  empires,  and  that  Ger- 
many must  have  that  idea  knocked  out  of  her  head  once  for  all. 
This  is  a  sane  and  logical  point  of  view.  There  is  no  doubt  that 
if  the  philosophy  of  Nietzsche  is  true,  and  if  morals  in  politics 
are  an  affectation,  we  should  exert  all  our  power,  now  that  we 
have  got  the  world  on  our  side,  to  dismember  the  German  Em- 
pire, to  enfeeble  her  people,  and  to  bar  her  progress  at  every 
point  of  the  compass.  But  this  is  a  point  of  view  which  presup- 
poses the  eternity  of  the  sword.  It  cannot  possibly  present  itself 
to  those  who  hate  war  as  Kant  hated  it,  and  Goethe,  and  Fichte, 
and  Hegel.  It  cannot  for  a  moment  be  entertained  by  any  man 
who  believes  in  the  religious  progress  of  humanity.  It  is  a  no- 

1  By  Harold  Begbie.     North  American  Review,  p.  891.     June, 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  253 

tion,  whatever  else  may  be  its  implications,  which  makes  a  scrap 
of  paper  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 

But  how  can  we  expect  Germany  and  Austria  and  Turkey 
and  Bulgaria  to  enter  our  league  of  nations  if  their  entrance  is 
to  be  made  in  the  rags  of  beggary  with  the  mark  of  slaves  upon 
their  brows?  We  can  force  them  in  such  a  condition  to  enter, 
but  with  what  hope  of  their  co-operation  in  the  great  work  of 
world  civilization?  Surely  we  must  confess  that  a  league  of 
nations  so  composed  would  break  asunder  within  measurable 
time.  The  conspiracies  of  the  malcontents  might  fail;  their 
mutinies  might  be  beaten  by  the  police  force  of  the  other  na- 
tions; their  revolts  might  be  feeble  and  short-lived;  but  such 
revolts  would  do  something  more  than  disturb  the  armed  peace 
of  the  world — they  would  introduce  dangerous  controversies  into 
the  league. 

It  seems  evident,  I  think,  that  if  this  league  of  nations  is  to 
be  formed,  and  if  from  this  league  which,  clearly,  is  only  a  be- 
ginning, the  nations  are,  in  the  words  of  the  late  Lord  Salisbury, 
to  be  "welded  in  some  international  constitution,"  which  he 
foresaw  to  be  the  one  eventual  security  against  war,  it  is,  above 
all  other  things,  necessary  that  good  will  should  inspire  the 
whole  body  of  nations  forming  that  league. 

International  federation,  which  we  are  now  considering,  is 
manifestly  the  greatest  political  ideal  which  presents  itself  to 
good  men  in  every  country  under  the  sun.  If  there  could  be  in 
the  world  an  international  court  of  justice  to  which  every 'dis- 
pute between  the  federated  nations  would  automatically  be  re- 
ferred, and  if  behind  this  international  court  of  justice  there 
could  be  a  force  of  the  federated  nations  to  see  that  its  judg- 
ments were  honored,  then  surely  we  might  hope  with  Lord 
Salisbury  for  "a  long  spell  of  unfettered  and  prosperous  trade 
and  continued  peace." 

But  as  soon  as  we  begin  to  particularize,  the  obstacles  to  such 
an  international  constitution  appear  almost  insurmountable.  For 
example,  let  us  suppose  that  France  claimed  from  us  the  restitu- 
tion of  the  Channel  Islands  and  the  court  decided  that  we  should 
surrender  them.  In  this  case,  despite  all  the  difficulties,  we 
might  bow  with  a  good  grace  to  the  judgment  of  the  court. 
But  suppose  that  India  appealed  to  the  Court  for  self-govern- 
ment, and  was  followed  by  Egypt,  and  then  that  Spain  came  into 


254  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

court  against  us,  claiming  Gibraltar  and  Malta,  would  it  be  easy 
for  us  to  submit?  No  one  dreams  of  setting  up  an  interna- 
tional constitution  which  would  merely  preserve  the  status  quo; 
it  is  obvious  that  this  international  constitution  must  be  as 
adaptable  and  progressive  as  a  national  constitution;  that  it 
must  be,  indeed,  the  supreme  judge  of  every  decade  of  world 
politics.  Are  we,  then,  quite  certain  that  we  could  with  safety 
commit  our  national  destinies  into  the  hands  of  such  a  constitu- 
tion? Might  not  the  peace  of  the  world  be  too  high  a  price 
to  pay  for  loss  of  control  over  our  own  British  destiny? 

The  Englishmen,  of  all  nationalities,  is  the  freest,  and  has  the 
notion  of  freedom  in  his  very  blood.  The  French  historian,  M. 
Seignobus,  has  paid  us  this  complement:  "The  English  people 
developed  the  political  mechanism  of  modern  Europe,  constitu- 
tional monarchy,  parliamentary  government,  and  safeguards  for 
personal  liberty.  The  other  nations  have  only  imitated  them." 
And  Professor  Ramsay  Muir,  in  Nationalism  and  International- 
ism, shows  that  England,  where  equal  law  was  established  by 
the  Norman  and  Angevin  kings,  was  "the  first  European  nation 
to  achieve  full  consciousness  of  her  nationhood."  England, 
then,  is  of  all  countries  the  least  unlikely  to  resent  the  decisions 
of  law.  She  has  none  of  the  irritable  pride  of  the  parvenu;  she 
is  old  in  her  hatred  of  militarism;  she  is  patient,  peace-loving, 
law-abiding.  But  who  can  think  of  this  England  allowing  an 
international  court  of  justice  to  decide  for  her  whether  India 
should  be  left  to  a  bloody  contest  between  Mussulmans  and 
Hindus,  and  whether  her  stupendous  work  in  Egypt  should  be 
exposed  to  the  destruction  of  desert  tribes?  And  if  England 
would  not  easily  submit  to  such  jurisdiction,  how  can  we  expect 
submission  from  those  more  arrogant  nations  in  whose  blood  is 
the  pride  of  the  sword  and  in  whose  history  is  no  long  tradi- 
tion of  the  law? 

If  we  are  honest  with  ourselves,  must  we  not  acknowledge 
that  there  is  some  indestructible  force  in  nationalism  which  in- 
sists upon  making  its  own  way  across  the  centuries,  and  which 
cannot  trust  itself  to  the  interference  of  others?  Is  it  not  a 
truth  of  every  educated  Englishman's  existence  that,  like  Mil- 
ton, "content  with  these  British  islands  as  my  world,"  he  feels 
the  destiny  of  his  country  to  be  something  immeasurable  greater 
and  infinitely  more  precious  than  anything  else  in  politics  of 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  255 

the  world?  And  is  it  to  be  expected  of  other  nations  that  they 
should  submit  to  a  foreign  decision  matters  which  they  feel  to 
be  vital  to  their  destinies— as  •  great  and  as  precious  to  them  as 
the  destiny  of  his  country  to  be  something  immeasurably  greater 
such  as  disputes  touching  the  interpretation  of  international  law, 
we  can  imagine  any  nation  submitting  to  a  tribunal  of  the 
peoples  but  not  matters  which  concern  their  destiny. 

And  yet  it  is  through  this  very  pressure  of  nationalism  that 
the  world  is  most  likely  to  reach  the  ideal  goal  of  international 
federation.  Instead  of  rinding,  as  so  many  pacifists  have  argued, 
that  nationalism  is  a  bar  to  internationalism,  we  shall  find,  I 
think,  that  by  no  other  road  is  internationalism  to  be  reached, 
But  we  shall  imperil  this  great  hope  if  we  insist  upon  proceed- 
ing with  President  Wilson's  suggestion  for  a  league  of  nations 
with  any  idea  in  our  minds  that  a  mechanical  solution  can  be 
found  for  national  rivalries.  Good  will  is  essential. 

Let  us  beware  of  pouring  the  new  wine  of  international  fra- 
ternity into  the  old  skins  of  national  hatreds.  These  dreadful 
hatreds,  history  teaches  us,  will  pass.  But  no  form  of  interna- 
tional machinery,  even  when  this  present  tempest  of  hatred  has 
passed,  can  guarantee  to  the  nations  of  the  earth  a  true  and  last- 
ing peace  until  the  spirit  which  animates  the  relations  of  states 
is  definitely  the  spirit  of  Good  Will. 


MAN  CANNOT  LIVE  TO  HIMSELF  ALONE, 
NOR  CAN  A  NATION1 

There  was  a  time  when  neighboring  countries  were  as  remote 
from  each  other,  in  so  far  as  intercourse  and  communication  are 
concerned,  as  though  separated  by  an  ocean  or  a  continent.  That 
day  has  passed. 

S  No  longer  can  any  man  live  to  himself  alone,  nor  any  nation. 
The  world  has  become  a  unit.  Crop  failure  in  South  America  is 
felt  in  Europe.  A  panic  in  London  or  New  York  creates 
financial  depression  throughout  the  world.  Industrial  difficulties 
in  any  one  country  have  their  influence  in  all  countries. 

1  From  "Brotherhood  of  Men  and  Nations,"  by  John  D.  Rockefeller, 
Jr.  An  address  delivered  before  the  Civic  and  Commercial  Club  of  Denver, 
Colorado,  June  13,  1918. 


256  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Just  as  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  any  nation  depend  upon 
the  happiness  and  the  welfare  of  all  the  people  in  that  nation,  so 
the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  world  are  dependent  upon  the 
happiness  and  welfare  of  all  the  nations  of  the  world.  And  no 
force  will  be  so  powerful  in  conserving  universal  peace  and  good 
will  after  the  war  is  over  as  the  spirit  of  Brotherhood  among 
men  and  nations./- 

When  this  world  struggle  is  ended,  grave  questions  are  sure 
to  arise  in  the  internal  life  of  the  several  countries  involved  in  it. 

Some  one  has  said  that  the  present  war  is  only  a  curtain 
raiser  compared  to  the  conflicts  which  are  likely  to  follow  when 
the  period  of  reconstruction  is  reached. 

The  progress  of  events  in  Russia  during  the  past  months 
gives  some  indication  of  the  violent  differences  of  opinion  which 
may  assert  themselves  and  of  the  bitter  internal  dissensions 
which  too  often  attend  the  re-birth  of  a  nation. 

The  patriotism  of  men  of  all  classes  is  certain  to  be  severely 
tested  in  the  readjustments  which  must  follow  the  war. 

During  the  period  of  reconstruction  the  one  force  to  be 
looked  to  for  the  prevention  of  possible  internal  wars  in  the 
various  nations — wars  which  if  they  came  would  be  far  bloodier 
and  more  heartrending  than  this  present  war,  because  between 
brothers — is  the  spirit  of  Brotherhood. 

If  that  spirit  shall  prevail — influencing  as  it  must  and  will 
those  who  are  conservative  in  their  views,  to  consider  the  vital 
questions  of  the  day  from  all  sides,  and  likewise  influencing 
those  who  are  radical  to  realize  that  time  is  a  great  force  in 
changing  most  things,  that  patience  must  be  called  into  play  and 
that  the  progress  which  is  slow  is  surer  than  that  which  is 
precipitate,  then  and  then  only  can  we  expect  this  critical  period 
to  be  lived  through,  and  the  momentous  questions  which  it  will 
bring  satisfactorily  adjusted,  without  further  bloodshed  and 
suffering. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  5O  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $I.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


J     ?M.' 


t-K 


LD  21-100m-7,'40  (6936s) 


5275 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


